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

[Li Shenron]

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).

Then I didn't understand the whole meaning of the thread.

I thought you wanted those "subclasses" to be like the current subclasses i.e. choice points, for instance that you wanted those 3 barbarians to become martial paths of the Fighter "class", with "class" and "subclasses" in the current sense (i.e. "Fighter" is a class of 20 levels, "Knight" is a subclass of 5 steps). That would be a major rewriting to turn current classes into subclasses, and I would be very much against such move, because it would seriously shrink 20 levels of good (IMO) design into 4-6 levels of subclass, with too much of a loss.

Instead you wanted to call/rename the current classes (including current subclasses) to "subclasses" and then have superclasses called "classes". That wouldn't need to change anything that is already designed, indeed.

Nothing changes, fine for me if WotC wants to introduce superclasses.

 

[steeldragons]

Then I didn't understand the whole meaning of the thread.

I thought you wanted those "subclasses" to be like the current subclasses i.e. choice points, for instance that you wanted those 3 barbarians to become martial paths of the Fighter "class", with "class" and "subclasses" in the current sense (i.e. "Fighter" is a class of 20 levels, "Knight" is a subclass of 5 steps). That would be a major rewriting to turn current classes into subclasses, and I would be very much against such move, because it would seriously shrink 20 levels of good (IMO) design into 4-6 levels of subclass, with too much of a loss.

Instead you wanted to call/rename the current classes (including current subclasses) to "subclasses" and then have superclasses called "classes". That wouldn't need to change anything that is already designed, indeed.

Nothing changes, fine for me if WotC wants to introduce superclasses.

Right. Sorry for the confusion. A Fighter can be a Knight like a Wizard can be an Illusionist or a Thief can be a Charlatan. Or you could just have a Fighter who is a Fighter...getting whatever a Fighter gets with no specialty or whatever it would be called...and play just fine.

A Barbarian is a Barbarian...but you could opt to have a "Bear Totem Barbarian" if you wanted that extra step/layer of stuff.

A Warlock is a Warlock. Off the top of my head, they'd get the Mage HP/HD, whatever generic/overarching Mage stuff there is which I imagine wouldn't include anything other than Arcane Spell Use. They'd get their own "at will" casting mechanic that is fluffed through a pact with some patron, and [since its up to me ] invocations (since that's really no different mechanically than a cleric Channeling Divinity in addition to their spell use)...but there's no reason they would have what the Wizard or Sorcerer characters have (other than the overarching Mage features)...and then, you could opt to have/detail yourself as a "Devil Pact Warlock" if you wanted that extra step/layer of stuff.

And, just for the record, I don't know what Mr. Mearls was thinking and possibly he misspoke, that "Scribe Scrolls" and "Brew Potions" are facets of the "Mage class". I disagree with that. Maybe he meant they are built into "Wizardry"? Then that's fine.

Sorcerers are just "making magic happen" so there's no reason they would be/know how to scribe (or actually "know with words") spells (unless they specifically took the skill/feat/whatever). Brewing potions could work though. And the reverse for Warlocks. So, maybe, build potions into the Sorcery packet and build scrolls into the "Warlockery" packet...and Wizardry gets both cuz Wizards are, ya know, the best there is at magicky stuff. And then Psions wouldn't get either built into the "Psionics" packet...maybe some kinda "Concentration/Mental Focus" skill or something instead.

 

[bogmad]

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'."

At first glance I have concerns, but I think I could be sold eventually on the sorcerer and warlock since they are all arcane users. And I think you addressed above the concern that all the warrior classes don't need to be shoehorned into fighter. If a psion could be as distinct from a fighter as a barbarian is I might have less concern. That doesn't seem to be the case with this theoretical psion since he'd share the same hit dice and "scroll and potion creation" and possibly more.
For me it's also a problem of fluff, since with the psion sharing so many aspects with the mage and presumed "magic" characters it makes it hard for those whose style favors "psionics are completely different than magic, detect magic does not notice psionics, etc." And yes, yes of course you can play any way you want, nobody is stopping you, but that argument hasn't convinced those naysayers that the 4e rule system favors a certain type of play and I think a similar issue is at play here, especially if this edition is supposed to be true to former expressions of D&D

If you're just organizationally put the psion in the magic users section I could see how it could work. Put him there, mention in the fluff that many people confuse psionics for a kind of magic, but put him at the very end with a sidebar and also let him be something different than the arcane classes. I don't like the idea of "oh and coincidentally these things that are totally different than magic spells are gained at the same progression as spells and do things exactly the same as a lot of the spells in the spell list"

Ideally, I'd like to see a psion that can do one or a few things really well ("telepathy, telekinesis, etc") with greater flexibility in effect than the "mage," and who also accrues his talents much slower to make up for this.

 

[Warbringer]

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.
.

Fair enough.

FWIW, I like your organization better than what is currently proposed, but I like idea of the big four at the core, and for D&D divine and arcane being separate is more traditional.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have no problems with your concept. The only change I would make is this...

You should change the Rogue class to the Expert class.

The Expert class would include Rogues (with schemes like Thief/Assassin etc.), Rangers, and Monks. Reason being is simple... they are the three classes that use Expertise dice. They are the classes focused on skill use, and more adventurer based.

The organization would thus be:

Warriors: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin
Experts: Rogue, Ranger, Monk, (and maybe Bard, if they also use Expertise dice)
Mages: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer
Priests: Cleric, Druid

But that being said... I also dunno what's technically gained by this arbitrary organization. The same way that the Power Source concept in 4E didn't really accomplish anything other than telling us what classes to expect updates for in upcoming splatbooks. Had rules been in place that affected Divine classes, or Arcane classes, or whatnot... maybe they would have served an actual purpose.

Thus Resistances or Vulnerabilities against Martial powers. Or Immunity to Divine powers. Or something like that. Something that actually made a difference to collecting all these classes into a group other than a tenuous connection to the fluff.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

Wow. Really? I was "foot stamping" and "gnashing of teeth" by simply pointing out the multiclass issue? Exaggerate much?

Don't ask for people's opinions if you don't want to hear them, or can't handle hearing them.

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.

For the record, I like Next. I have overall been pretty positive about it and have even said it has the potential to be my favorite edition of the game. Sure, I complain about the things I don't like. That's the entire point of having a playtest! I have also been quick to praise and defend many of its more controversial elements, like bounded accuracy and the new not-quite-vancian spellcasting system. I've offered a ton of constructive feedback over the last year in an effort to help them make the game better. Sure, sometimes I am passionate about my opinions. I'm only human, after all. I don't appreciate you making me out to be some rabid, anti-5e troll.

 

[thundershot]

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?

Thank you for posting this! This is exactly the way I would want it. The only thing I would probably want to change is make Psionic classes a 5th category. Other than that... Nice!

EDIT: Just read the rest of the thread.. I don't see why it's necessary to multiclass as a Cleric/Druid or Fighter/Barbarian or Wizard/Sorcerer... I've played many multiclass characters over the years, and those are combos that just don't come up. Usually a Fighter/Mage or a Rogue/Mage or a Fighter/Rogue...

 

[MoonSong]

EDIT: Just read the rest of the thread.. I don't see why it's necessary to multiclass as a Cleric/Druid or Fighter/Barbarian or Wizard/Sorcerer... I've played many multiclass characters over the years, and those are combos that just don't come up. Usually a Fighter/Mage or a Rogue/Mage or a Fighter/Rogue...

Cof, Cof, Drizzit...

 

[Li Shenron]

But that being said... I also dunno what's technically gained by this arbitrary organization.

You are right. It accomplishes nothing if it's not accompanied by some mechanical consequence, but if it is, then it's practically like introducing an artificial design restriction that doesn't have to be... There's always been classes half-way between warriors and priests (Paladin), or between experts and mages (Bard), and even across all four (Ranger), and IMO the warlock could be between mage and priest.

Trying to add another level of labels is not really going to help newbies, it might actually confuse some of them even more.

 

[Weather Report]

Cof, Cof, Drizzit...

Which could not exist in the current playtest, the Scimitar is not "Light".