So what races and classes do we consider core?

[GSHamster]

I like the big four for races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.

But only four classes seems too few for me. Even if it is the very basics. For classes I would go with 8 classics:

Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Bard, Paladin

It's just not D&D if we don't have alignment arguments about paladins.

Though honestly, I might prefer to substitute Warlord for the Druid. I think the Warlord is a very strong intitial class, and an inclusive edition should include some things from 4E. But the Warlord, or any non-magical healer, is a pretty controversial class.

 

[nnms]

This is a no win situation for WotC. Like when 4E came out and people complained about a lack of Gnomes.

My list for "core":

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

Classes:

Fighter
Magic User
Cleric
Thief

Everything else can be in supplements.

 

[Dausuul]

Races:

• Human
• Elf (with wood and high subraces)
• Dwarf
• Halfling
• Half-elf
• Half-orc

Classes:

• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Paladin
• Ranger
• Rogue
• Sorceror
• Wizard

(That gives two options each for Sneaky Guy, Divine Caster, Fighty Guy, and Arcane Caster.)

 

[TwinBahamut]

To be honest, I hope WotC does everything it can to kill the very idea of "core" in 5e D&D. In many ways, I think the massive divide between "core only" players and "use everything but the core" players during the 3E era is the true root of the modern Pathfinder/4E divide. The goals of 5E, which include reaching out to players in both camps and being as inclusive as possible, are rather antithetical to the entire concept of "core". Defining one thing as "core" and another as "not core" is an act of exclusion, of saying that one way of playing the game is better or more "true D&D" than another, and that should be avoided.

The only way to handle things fairly is to say that there is no "core", and that everything in the game is equally weighted as being merely an option. Elves and Dwarves should be exactly as optional and "non-core" as more exotic concepts like Dragonborn and Devas. After all, there are many people out there (like myself, actually), who dislike the former but would embrace the latter, so I don't think it is fair to say that everyone must pay for and use the former but not the latter.

As such, to finally answer the question...

Core Races: Human

Core Classes: None

All else is completely optional.

 

[Knightfall]

What I really want:

Races
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Halfling
Human
Rakasta (or another old school race)

Classes
Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

What I'd be willing to accept:

Races
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Half-Elf
Halfling
Human

Classes
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

Themes
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Paladin
Ranger
Sorcerer

 

[Pickles JG]

I think the game should start with a strong classic setting & the initial core races will depend on what it is.

I prefer
Human
Eladrin - proper fey not tolkein style
Drow - so D&D
Dwarfs - there is always someone grumpy
Tieflings - planescape memento
Dragonborn - not really they bug me but they are the most 4e race to carry forward

Classes in the way Defcon described them might be good.

I would like powersources to have more coherent themes & be used to reduce power spam & roles to add riders to their sources powers which does not leave much space for classes.

 

[Greg K]

Races:
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Half Elf
Halfling
half-orc
Human

I would gladly accept Eladrin (I like the Elf/Eladrin split and several TSR settings had multiple version of elves), Goliath (can take the place of Half-Ogres), Half-Orcs, and Lizard men, but not Dragonborn or Tielfling.

Classes:
Barbarians
Bards
Clerics
Druids
Fighter
Monk
Paladin (preferrably, a more generic Holy Warrior)
Rangers (preferably, non spellcaster)
Sorcerer
Rogue
Wizard

With 3e, I would add Psychic, Shaman, and Witch based on Green Ronin's take. They latter two were long over due in my opinion. I also like the 4e Warlord (but want to see a differentiation between magical and non-magical healing of Inspiring Word).

My preference is more for something like True20 Revised Classes
Adept (Artificers, non-martial clerics, Psychics, Shamans, Sorcerer, Witches, Warlocks, Wizards)
Expert (Sages, Thieves)
Warrior (Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, Warlord)
Warrior Adept (Arcane Warriors, Holy Warriors, Martial Clerics, Paladins (Spellcasting), Rangers (Spellcasting), Wardens)
Physical Adept ( Monks, Ninjas (mystical) )
? (Swashbucklers, Ninjas (non-mystical) Rangers (non-spellcasting), certain barbarians): Lightly armored warriors crossed with expert)

Customize with Backgrounds/Themes, skill choices, feat choices, talent trees/power selection, fighting styles, etc.

 

[cildarith]

Races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling

Classes: Fighter, Mage, Thief, Cleric

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'd say lose the thief and make thieving abilities skills anyone can pick up. Why can't a fighter learn to pick a lock? Why can't my invisible, silenced, wizard backstab?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Races:

Human
Dwarf
Elf, Eladrin
Halfling
Half-Elf
Goliath (fits better tahn half-orc)
Gnome

Classes:
Warrior (Subclass: Warlord, Fighter, Paladin)
Priest (Subclass: Cleric, Druid)
Mage (Sublcass: Wizard, Specialist, Psion)
Skillmonkey (subclass: Ranger, Rogue, Bard)

Actually a very difficult thing to split classes... you could also go with:

Light armored
Heavy armored
Support