Core Classes: What and how many

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

4th Edition introduced a ton of classes and subclasses to the game. In total, there are 26 classes (44 if you split classes like Fighter into the subclasses of Weaponmaster, Slayer, and Knight). The question, how many core classes should there be and what should they be.

For the purposes of keeping the poll reasonable, I've removed varioius subclasses of each class. As for what core is, I leave that to the individual to decide.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've never thought that D&D needed more than 4 classes.

Here's my idea (which also happens to be a lot of other peoples' idea.) Start with the Big 4--fighter, cleric, thief, and mage--then use a handful of skill trees to add complexity and make for unique combinations.

Assassin: a thief with a different skill tree.
Barbarian: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Bard: a thief with a different skill tree.
Druid: a cleric with a different skill tree.
Monk: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Paladin: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Ranger: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Sorcerer: a mage with a different skill tree.
Radiant Servant of Pelor: a cleric with a different skill tree.

Do you like psionics? The "5th Edition Psionics Handbook" could have:
Psion: a mage with a different skill tree.
Psi Warrior: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Soul Knife: a thief with a different skill tree.
Slayer: a fighter with a different skill tree.

Are you playing a swashbuckling, high-seas campaign? Just pick up the "D&D Swashbuckling on the High Seas" expansion book, and get more skill trees:

Pirate: a thief with a different skill tree.
Privateer: a fighter with a different skill tree.
and so on.

Are you running an Oriental Adventures game? Just pick up "D&D 5E Oriental Adventures" and find even more skill trees:

Samurai: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Ninja: a thief with a different skill tree.
Shaolin: a cleric with a different skill tree.
Kensai: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Shugenja: a mage with a different skill tree.
Etc.

It makes the game a lot more modular, a lot more streamlined, and a lot easier to multiclass. Want to play a fighter/mage? Just start putting points into another skill tree.

This is what I would like to see in the 5th Edition. It will be a hard sell for me otherwise.

 

[Aramax]

I voted for Invoker but it could easily be a cleric subclass,warlord and avenger could be subs of fighter or paladin
Not sure how I would go w/ this if it were my decision to make
Prob put6-8 classes in each of 2 books

 

[Roland55]

I've never thought that D&D needed more than 4 classes.

Here's my idea (which also happens to be a lot of other peoples' idea.) Start with the Big 4--fighter, cleric, thief, and mage--then use a handful of skill trees to add complexity and make for unique combinations.

Barbarian: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Bard: a thief with a different skill tree.
Druid: a cleric with a different skill tree.
Monk: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Paladin: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Ranger: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Sorcerer: a mage with a different skill tree.

Are you playing a swashbuckling, high-seas campaign? Just pick up the "D&D Swashbuckling on the High Seas" expansion book, and get more skill trees:

Pirate: a thief with a different skill tree.
Privateer: a fighter with a different skill tree.
and so on.

Are you running an Oriental Adventures game? Just pick up "D&D 5E Oriental Adventures" and find even more skill trees:

Samurai: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Ninja: a thief with a different skill tree.
Shaolin: a cleric with a different skill tree.
Kensai: a fighter with a different skill tree.
Shugenja: a mage with a different skill tree.
Etc.

It makes the game a lot more modular, a lot more streamlined, and a lot easier to multiclass. Want to play a fighter/mage? Just start putting points into another skill tree.

This is what I would like to see in the 5th Edition. It will be a hard sell for me otherwise.

I'm out of XPs today. So I'll just say that this would work for me.

 

[drothgery]

Well, I've posted my class list proposal before, although it assumes carry-over of a lot of 4e-isms that I like which don't seem to be as popular as I'd think, and gives a few classes a more old school spin that also hasn't gone over as well as I'd thought.

Martial: fighter (defender), rogue (striker), ranger (controller), warlord (leader)
Divine: paladin (defender), monk (striker), druid (controller), cleric (leader)
Arcane: swordmage (defender), sorcerer (striker), wizard (controller), bard (leader)

with future books adding
Psionic: psychic warrior / battlemind (defender), soulknife (striker), psion (controller), ardent (leader) and
Shadow: hexblade (defender), assassin (striker), warlock (controller), and necromancer (leader)

 

[Glade Riven]

Like Clevernickname, I think a lot of the classes can be merged. Maybe not quite to the point Clevernickname believes, but Paizo's archetype system is a good example. Personally, I think a lot of the warlord stuff could be shifted into a paladin build, or split between a fighter build and a paladin build.

 

[mkill]

Every class is core. If you don't think a class is unique and interesting enough that it deserves full support, improve it until it is.

That said, I think that 5E should be able to reproduce all 3E and 4E characters eventually, after enough splatbooks (there is some pretty wild stuff in late 3E though, like Incarnum). I would start with the 4E class list, but merge a few classes. Essentials has shown that with subclasses (I'd call them paths) you can have different builds that fill different roles. I also think that not every class needs to fit a role to a T, there can be mix and matching.

/ represents a role mix
, represents different builds

PHB
Fighter - Defender, Striker (Slayer), Leader (Warlord)
Rogue - ranged Striker, melee Striker
Bard - Leader/Controller
Druid - Leader/Controller
Wizard - Controller, Striker (all 8 schools of magic)
Cleric (in robes, using a holy symbol, Runepriest mechanics) - Leader
Paladin - Defender/Leader
Swordmage - Defender, Striker (Duskblade)
Barbarian - Striker, Defender (Warden)
Sorcerer - Striker/Controller
Ranger - ranged Striker, melee Striker

Later
Monk - Striker, Controller, Defender
Psion - Controller
Psychic Warrior - Defender, Striker (Soulknife, Lurk)
Cleric - Striker (Avenger), Controller (Invoker)
Druid - Defender (Shapechanger)
Warlock - Controller, Defender (Hexblade)
Ranger - Controller (Hunter, Seeker)
Wizard - Leader (White Mage)
Summoner - any (depending on summoned Bestia)
...

 

[Gryph]

I would prefer to see broader class support in the PHB, 12 or so classes, but shallower. If we are going to see the kind of multiple PHB, Complete X type of splats of previous WoTC editions, I would like them to divide along tier lines rather than class lines.

In other words, I'd rather have 16 classes from 1-10 in the first release, than 8 classes from 1-30.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Even though I support the notion of combining class with a skill tree I think something is missing. A paladin is more than just a fighter with cleric skills. We need to add Title: Paladin, complete with a unique ability to the build. Otherwise some of the poetry is lost.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

My vote was for all the base 3E classes, save for one change. I dropped Monk in favor of Warlord.

I think Monk can / should be done with fighter feats.

Warlrod, on the other hand, is an advancement in the game's design. Having a Martial healer is good for the game and it allows for a third primary healing class (along with Druid and Cleric).

I can see giving Warlord's healing toolset to Paladin though if one felt Monk should be perserved (or swordmage added).