D&D 5E Steel Dragons' 5e Class List Compleat...take 42.

[steeldragons]

Here's what I've seen all around here and extrapolated to come up with. It does seem that the "all classes that appeared in a 1st PHB" is being adhered to, if not entirely in the ways we might all have been thinking over the passed year or so...

So without further ado [about nothing], I present for your viewing pleasure, and undoubtedly dazzling comments,
Steel Dragons' ABSOLUTELY DEFINITIVE [and completely hypothetical] CLASS LIST FOR D&D 5e!

Warrior Classes: The Fighter. The "default"/"basic game" warrior class. Trick him/her out with your choice of 8 Combat Styles including, but not limited to: Archer, Gladiator, Knight and Slayer.
The Barbarian. A "sub-class" of the Warrior. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Totems.
--Barbarian -Bear Totem (standard Berserker/Rager)
--Barbarian -Lion Totem (more Dex/speed based)
--Barbarian -Raven Totem ("Shamanic/Spirit" powers, minor access to some druidic magics?)
The Paladin. A "sub-class" of the Warrior. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Oaths.
--Paladin -Sun Oath (the traditional LG Paladin)
--Warden -Moon Oath (the N nature-y Paladin)
--Blackguard -Darkness Oath (the LE "anti-paladin")
The Ranger. A "subclass" of the Warrior. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Lodges.
--Ranger -Hunter Lodge (skills and bonuses based on favored enemies)
--Ranger -Nature Lodge (access to druid spells and abilities)
--Ranger -Guardian Lodge (skills and bonuses based on terrain)

Mage Classes: The Wizard. The "default"/"basic game" Mage class. Trick him/her out with your choice of 8 Traditions including, but not limited to: Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist and Necromancer.
The Psion. A "sub-class" of the Mage. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Disciplines.
--Telepath -Telepathy Discipline
--Kinetic -Telekinetics Discipline
--Seer -Clairvoyance Discipline
The Sorcerer. A "sub-class" of the Mage. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Origins.
--Sorcerer -Dragon Origin
--Sorcerer -Faye Origin
--Sorcerer -Elemental Origin
The Warlock. A "subclass" of the Mage. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Pacts.
--Warlock -Devil Pact
--Warlock -Faye Pact
--Warlock -Horror Pact

Rogue Classes: The Thief. The "default"/"basic game" rogue class. Trick him/her out with your choice of 8 Schemes including, but not limited to: Charlatan, Thug and Trickster.
The Assassin. A "sub-class" of the Rogue. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Guilds.
--Assassin -Espionage Guild
--Assassin -Nightshade Guild (poison specialists)
--Assassin -Shadow Guild (acrobatics/ninja stuff and eventual "shadow magic" powers)
The Bard. A "sub-class" of the Rogue. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Colleges.
--Loremaster -Sage College (improved magic/spell ability and lore skills)
--Warlord -Skald College (improved inspiration and combat skill)
--Spellsword -Bladesinger College (the essential "gish" character)

Priest Classes: The Cleric. The "default"/"basic game" priest class. Trick him/her out with your choice of 8 Domains including, but not limited to: Light, Storm, Knowledge, and Healing.
The Druid. A "sub-class" of the Priest. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Circles.
--Druid -Oak Circle (extra magicky/spell specialist)
--Druid -Moon Circle (shapeshifting specialist)
--Beastmaster -Stag Circle (animal companions/summoning)
The Monk. A "sub-class" of the Priest. Trick him/her out with your choice of 3 Orders.
--Monk -Dragon Order (the extra special martial artist, different attacks and skills)
--Monk -Pearl Order (the chi powers/psionic monk)
--Monk -Tiger Order (more strength/warrior oriented, different attacks and skills)

There ya go. Everything from your B/X Fighters and Thieves to 2e specialist Mages and specialty Clerics, your 3e wildshaping Druids and Sorcerers to 4e Warlords, Warlocks and shadow-walking Assassins [oh my!]...Psionics and Monks and Bards...even a Spirit-Shamany type Barbarian for cryin' out loud!

How's this set with everybody? Who's not getting something they want with this?

 

[Falling Icicle]

How's this set with everybody? Who's not getting something they want with this?

Anyone who wants to multiclass within one of those 4 categories, i.e. fighter/ranger, rogue/bard, or warlock/wizard.

 

[steeldragons]

*facepalm*

Anyone...ya know...else?

 

[MoonSong]

*facepalm*

Anyone...ya know...else?

Well sorcerers and warlock lose on flavor by having scribe scroll, potion brewing and esoteric knowledge forced upon their necks. They also lose on simplicity by being forced to be pieced together from the wizard. And then also lose on overall power because they are going to be bound by the same limits placed upon the wizard whether that makes sense or not, for example by being denied spell slots since wizards have ritual casting to compensate, when sorcerers themselves won't have it, or worse having that forced upon the class too to keep balance, way worse because the designers missed the chance to give the sorcerer and warlock a treatment that put their identity and flavor first (embrace what makes them distinctive archetypes) and instead are watering them down.

 

[Warbringer]

*facepalm*

Anyone...ya know...else?

Why the attitude? Seems reasonable

 

[bogmad]

Sounds well enough if the diversity of classes fits with how fighters/barbarians/palidans/rangers are currently implemented. If there's that much diversity in the "warrior" class then there might be hope for the mage subclasses.
I'm not sure that's how it'll break down though. Right now it looks like the classes are set with your "warrior" classes being separate and not subclasses, with only the mage breaking down wildly different archetypes into subclasses.

And does the monk fit into a priest subclass, or is it more of a "warrior"

That's where I'm perplexed with current class design. Warrior types get distinct classes based on story and mechanics while non-warrior types outside of the core 4 mostly get lumped in with the mage.

 

[Li Shenron]

This rearrangement would require major rewriting of many classes...

 

[steeldragons]

Why the attitude? Seems reasonable

Did I mention anything that said anything about multi-classing? What sh/would be allowed or not allowed? Is any concern or comment about multi-classing rules in my post? Was I saying anything about multi-classing...at all?

Besides the fact that I see no reason anyone would want those combinations named in the post (though I suppose a warlock/wizard isn't so weird...I could see wanting a psion/wizard or psion/anything), redundant multi-classing is redundant. But be that as it may, why wouldn't you be allowed, if you so wanted, to mix and match the classes I listed however you want based on what I posted?

First comment, immediately, "this is wrongbad." Perhaps it wasn't intended as such, but it reads to me as a so much foot stamping and gnashing of teeth...about nothing I posted/was talking about. Not really meaning to call out Falling Icicle specifically, he/she is certainly not the only person around the forums that does this about any blessed thing 5e says they want to do/are doing.

So, yeah, a facepalm seemed appropriate.

This rearrangement would require major rewriting of many classes...

Why? Because a book is going to organize some classes under the umbrella of the others? They still get their own features, their own class "defining" traits, their own fluff (which is completely ignore/alterable, of course). The rules of using PC classes in the game needn't change because a Druid is listed as a "Priest Class" or has its own page reading, "Druid's are priests of nature..." in its first line. Why would you need to rewrite anything that's been done so far?
I suppose I should have been more detailing, each class is still getting whatever they've said they'll get. You can/should be able to play a "Fighter" or "Bard" or "Sorcerer" without "tricking them out" [using any of the variants] as anything, if you so wanted. They'd still get whatever their defining features are...and just because a Psion is a "sub class" of the Mage and the Wizard is the "default option" doesn't mean Psions get/do everything that Wizards get/do + Psion stuff. They just are organized and constructed a la a Mage rather than a Fighter (or Rogue or Priest).

 

[steeldragons]

Well sorcerers and warlock lose on flavor by having scribe scroll, potion brewing and esoteric knowledge forced upon their necks. They also lose on simplicity by being forced to be pieced together from the wizard. And then also lose on overall power because they are going to be bound by the same limits placed upon the wizard whether that makes sense or not, for example by being denied spell slots since wizards have ritual casting to compensate, when sorcerers themselves won't have it, or worse having that forced upon the class too to keep balance, way worse because the designers missed the chance to give the sorcerer and warlock a treatment that put their identity and flavor first (embrace what makes them distinctive archetypes) and instead are watering them down.

This is all better left to one of the other "What the F are they doin' with Mages?!" threads...but I'll just answer it anyway...

Yeah. I saw the post quoting Mike Mearls in...one of those Mage-based threads floating around...and that surprised me. And struck me as a notoriously BAD idea! And one quote even cited him allegedly saying that he sees it as making total sense for 'psions' to scribe sscrolls and brew potions...I was like "A-whaaaaaa?" Sorcerers, I guess could be written up with that. Warlocks makes a hella more sense to have it than Psions. BUT, I don't think it should be automatic for any class except the Wizard.

But, if those things are part of the "Wizardry" parcel, there's no need/reason for it to be wrapped up in any of the other Mage classes. You'd be taking the "Sorcery" parcel or the "Psion" or "Warlock" parcel [and FYI aside, they'd better get change the name of what pact-making "Warlocks" do/use from "Witchcraft", I'll tell ya that right now. Gonna be some unnnnhappy witches.) I see no reason Sorcerers or Warlocks wouldn't be capable of learning to use rituals, even if the ability isn't written into their default class features (which I certainly would for the Warlock, at least).

As for the losing on flavor, even if they keep the scrolls and potions as part of the classes' abilities, its not like there won't be stuff about their bloodlines and/or pacts...they're, like, their defining fluffy traits that the whole class is built around...whether you use the variants or handwave it to just have the default "Sorcerer" character without any special/specific origin story but want to have the spontaneous caster. So I don't really see that as diminishing the classes' flavor as much as just adding things that aren't necessary.

 

[steeldragons]

Sounds well enough if the diversity of classes fits with how fighters/barbarians/palidans/rangers are currently implemented. If there's that much diversity in the "warrior" class then there might be hope for the mage subclasses.
I'm not sure that's how it'll break down though. Right now it looks like the classes are set with your "warrior" classes being separate and not subclasses, with only the mage breaking down wildly different archetypes into subclasses.

Well yeah that seems to have a lot of people up in arms. From an organizational standpoint, I see no reason this would be the case (that fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger be considered "separate" and mages all one).

Also, with the exception of "psion", I don't really consider wizard/sorcerer/warlock to be "wildly different archetypes. Certainly not the wizard and sorcerer, maybe moreso the warlock. But the bottom line, in D&D terms, is that all use "magic spells" or, more specifically "Arcane magic." Their highly revered/defended "differences" are simply [easily mutable] fluff and the "magic system/spell mechanics". They are names applied (classes created) to various ways to "cast spells", mechanical distinctions wit ha candy-coating of fluffy-goodness. Sorcerer sez: "I gots magic in me blood...from this kind of creature." Warlock sez "I gots blood in me magic!...from this kinda creature." That's what they are.

...and as I've said elsewhere...though it's not a great "fit", where else is Psion going to go? Between Priest, Rogue, Fighter, Mage...putting Psion under Mage makes the most sense. Otherwise you have what happened in the 1e PHB and every edition since..."Here's the BIG 4 [and classes associated with them]...oh, and psionics." And again, they're really just different "casting" mechanic with a fluffy candy coating of "These are psychic powers not 'magic/spells'."

And does the monk fit into a priest subclass, or is it more of a "warrior"

This was a tough call for my hypothetical system up top. The other option tugging at me was to put Monk under Warriors and move Paladin under Priests. But at the end of the day, I think it makes more sense as I did it.
1) There is the tradition/history of the Paladin as a Fighter subclass.
2) Going back to BECM, the monk-type of class was even called the "mystic" and really did a better job (better name) for the idea of the meditative martial artist we think of/associate with a D&D "monk", which has always had that "weird mental/cleric-like" powers like talking to plants and healing yourself.
3) You have the occidental application of the word "monk" which is, distinctly, a religious title/member of a religious order...so that lends to the "put them with priests" argument
and 4) In the initial idea to build up this construction/organization, the aim was to keep things somewhat symmetrical. Since Wizards have 8 possible specialist schools, I wanted to say that Fighters would have 8 specialist types too, Thieves 8 specialists types, etc... Since there were 3 identified "subclasses" of Mage, I wanted 3 identified "subclasses" of Warrior...with Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger, those 3 are already used up. Then 2 each beyond Thief and Cleric. Druid, obviously, was the no brainer...and in keeping wth the "all classes from a 1st PHB" mantra, that left the monk out in the cold...and then, like a sunbeam from on high, there is an open slot under the Priest classes just waiting for the Monk. I think it's a perfect fit and makes more sense -again for my hypothetical set-up that I just made up here myself- thematically and legacy-wise to associate it as a Priest than Warrior class. They would not have access to divine spells, though I suppose one could make the argument that they could be added. But they would be more "unarmored fightery" than a Cleric or Druid, keeping the spiritual context.

Now, in a game like 4e, where things are organized by "power source" and you wanted to say the defining feature of "Priest classes" is their access to/use of Divine energies, then I suppose you'd have to swap Paladin and Monk. But then, I'd swap out Druid also since I don't consider the Druid magic/powers as "Divine energies"...and you can see the big mess that would just snowball from there. I think keeping Monk and Paladin where I placed them works best (from an organizational standpoint) and makes the most sense (from a thematic stadpoint).

That's where I'm perplexed with current class design. Warrior types get distinct classes based on story and mechanics while non-warrior types outside of the core 4 mostly get lumped in with the mage.

And so, I have alleviated that perplexed state for you by organizing the classes all within their group umbrellas! Right?! Right?!

They are ALL distinct classes. They're just listed like this for elegance and simplicity. Your character sheet doesn't need to say "Mage-Wizardry" any more than it has to say "Warrior-Paladinic Training." Put Wizard on your character sheet. Put Psion instead of "Mage-psionics." All of this "warlocks/sorcerers/psions are Mages but Rangers and Barbarians are their own thing" tempest seems to me a bit..."hollow", I suppose is the best phrase. I reeeeally severely doubt it will be like that.

A Ranger is a archetype/style of someone who uses combat/weapons to solve their adventuring problems, a fighting man. It is a Warrior. It does what a Warrior does and has these other tricks/skills/abilities associated with it.

A Sorcerer is an archetype/style of someone who uses weird/forbidden/unknown/arcane lore and "magics" to solve their adventuring problems, an arcane magic-user. It is a Mage. It does what Mages do and has these other tricks/skills/abilities associated with it.

They're the same thing. Everybody's getting their own page(s) to describe them and what they do and how to expand/vary them if you want.