D&D 5E [poll] Which classes should be core

TwoSix · Jul 3, 2019

Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Mystic, Warlock, Wizard.

Wizard is magic driven by knowledge and esoteric techniques. Subsumes artificer and bard.
Warlock is magic provided and controlled by pacts with supernatural entities. Subsumes clerics and shaman types.
Mystic is internal, often psychic magic. Subsumes monk and sorcerer.

Fighter subsumes barbarian.
Rogue subsumes ranger.
Warlord subsumes paladin.

Xeviat · Jul 3, 2019

Six isn't enough. I can't choose six. I can barely choose 10.

Sacrosanct · Jul 3, 2019

Interesting results so far, and turns some assumptions upside down. Barbarian has been there since 3e, but the warlord, artificer, and mystic are much higher. It would feel weird for me to be in a room with designers and saying that we'll omit the barbarian class for one of the other three because it feels....wrong somehow. But clearly the fanbase favors different things that "tradition".

Tallifer · Jul 3, 2019

I prefer the 4E mantra: everything is core.

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Interesting results so far, and turns some assumptions upside down. Barbarian has been there since 3e,

Since 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana!

but the warlord, artificer, and mystic are much higher.

Probably because they're controversial, plus, two are in the (extreeeeeeeeemly long) UA 'pipeline,' one got a Mike Mearls sub-class build in his game-design stream.

It would feel weird for me to be in a room with designers and saying that we'll omit the barbarian class for one of the other three because it feels....wrong somehow. But clearly the fanbase favors different things that "tradition".

The Barbarian, Ranger, and, say, Sorcerer, at a minimum, are /really/ redundant, so if folks are answering honestly...
...not too crazy.

TwoSix · Jul 3, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
Interesting results so far, and turns some assumptions upside down. Barbarian has been there since 3e, but the warlord, artificer, and mystic are much higher. It would feel weird for me to be in a room with designers and saying that we'll omit the barbarian class for one of the other three because it feels....wrong somehow. But clearly the fanbase favors different things that "tradition".

Neophilia is a thing.

If given a choice between an older option and a new option, I'll usually go for the new.

Plus, barbarian is one of those options that can so obviously be consolidated under fighter that it's harder to justify in a list of "only 6 classes".

Sacrosanct · Jul 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Since 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana!

.

I meant since it was considered a core class, rather than a special one off, like the cavalier, or archer, or any other class that appeared in a Dragon magazine. I know 2e had barbarians as well, but it still wasn't really core any more than the ninja was.

Ralif Redhammer · Jul 3, 2019

I went with core four plus bard and paladin. I probably could’ve done five with C4+bard, but hey, it said six, so I went with six. And to me D&D wouldn’t feel right without it’s noble holy warrior. Blame too many stories about King Arthur and the Round Table as a kid…

I figure that if you really wanted, you could pretty much have everything else be a subclass of the core four, save for the bard, which I thought never quite fit right with thief in 2e.

Monk could belong under cleric or fighter. Ranger & paladin go under fighter. Warlock, artificer, sorcerer, mystic, all under wizard. Debatably, one of the thing's that’s hung up the mystic from release has been trying to create a whole new subsystem for another kind of magic and have it balance out.

Jer · Jul 3, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
The Barbarian, Ranger, and, say, Sorcerer, at a minimum, are /really/ redundant, so if folks are answering honestly...
...not too crazy.

Every class is redundant. My proposal is to create a single class called "Adventurer" and then create a point buy system designed to allow anyone to build up any of the existing classes via point allocations...

[Sounds of individual getting pummeled by 4th edition Champions and Fantasy Hero rulebooks]

I'm sorry - what were we talking about?

Tony Vargas · Jul 3, 2019

You did bring up 'redundancy' and the Barbarian is seriously redundant, as is the Ranger (and it has an identity crisis).

But, then, so is the Rogue, and that redundancy doesn't seem to be hurting it any.

....

The Bard's strong showing surprises me, too: for such a long time, as late as 3.5, it was the joke class, hardly more serious than the April-Fool "Jester." I guess two eds of solid support rehabilitated it's image.

....

As usual, the Fighter remains far-and-away the most popular, with 44 out of 36 respondents thinking it should be core. Yeah, ENMath.