D&D (2024) 6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?

[steeldragons]

I am not familiar with Legend d20 so it might already be like this, but the second I looked at it I thought abotu the old Shadowrun priority system (or whatever it was called) where you had an A, B, C and D priorities.

So take what you said, but then pick four tracks and prioritize them at A, B, C and D which advance at different rates.

At 1st level you start with the 1st feature from Tracks A, B and C. After that as you level up, different tracks advance. Track A progresses 2 out of 3 levels. Track B progresses every other level. Track C and D progresses 2 out of 5 levels, so you end up with 2 tracks advancing every level.

Well, technically you end up that 1 level out of 30 would only have a single advancement (that adds up to 59/30s), but even if we go back to a 30 level game, that's only 29 advances so it can still be ignored. And while C and D advance at the same rate, C starts with an advancement at 1st so it's further down the track.

Couldn't one just simplify this further (the above and the Legend d20 suggestion sounds ridiculously complicated, as well as a huge divergence from D&D class-based core), to just say, you have 3 or 4 categories/tracks whatever of features, and at each level up, you get 2.

Like, that's all you have to worry about at level up. Where are you putting your 2 points? 1 in A track and one in C, this time/level 2...at level 3, 1 in A track again, and one in B...both in D at 4th level level...etc...

Would seem to make for a very simple game, just placing your 2 points every level, within a game of endless options to piece together and keep track of prerequisites and such.

It would be...different.

 

[Blue]

Necromancy, similarly, sits alone for it's, shall we say "Soul-based magic"...rather than simply 'I make undead minions!" Necromancy, literally "Speaking with the Dead," is itself an form of Divination. But not solely, in D&D terms, of course. It is, however, the magic of Death and necrotic energies, but also, thereby, the flip-side of the last and greatest unknown, by delving into the depths of Death and Undeath, one is intrinsically defining Life at the same time...but whatever is NOT Life is where you are delving. So, I see plenty of room for Necromancers to be rather "vampiric" in nature -drawing from life around them to fuel their own health- making them stand out all the more in D&D as the "Wizards who can Heal?!" (but you might not like how it's done ). There is also the opening for flavors of "Blood Magic" type characters, of course the D&D tropes of the wizard pursuing lichdom, even a Dr. Frankenstein Johnny Deppian Ichabod Crane forensic anatomist type of "scientist" wizard.

For all of this, I am now wondering if, indeed, Necromancers are required to stand alone as a sub-class (or Necromancy as a stand alone magical type/school), or if they are more appropriately shifted into the 'prestige-style-tack-on-a-few-levels-of-archetype" class.

Just to play with a sacred cow, need a Necromancer be a traditional caster? Or at least as others are casters, vs. casting rituals to raise the dead as a justification.

For example, could there be a "Pet" class, that gets flavored based on your power source and has subclasses based on if you want one big pet, a horde of minions, a team of moderately powered pets, and if they stay around or you bring them up for the occasion.

So a Pet [Nature] would be a Beastmaster (either ranger-y or druid-y), a Pet [Unlife] would be a traditional Necromancer*, some sort of artificer could have a golem or a horde of arcano-mechanical pets, and a traditional Summoner would be Pet [Arcane].

(*And a "white necromancer" would take a whole different class, so they aren't burning advancement/features on something they wouldn't sure.)

Though perhaps these work better where "Pet" is an advances-every-level sort of thing, but you also have a place for another feel - necromancers might drain life, the beastmaster might want either ranger type or druid type adders, etc.

 

[steeldragons]

Interesting...in a "thinking outside the box" thought experiment kind of way.

I, for one, am staunchly against the incorporation of a "Pet" base class (not overly keen on them as subclasses, either, for that matter).

This is Dungeons & Dragons fantasy Table Top pencil & paper RPG, dagnabbit, not Poke-Digi-Whowutzit-mon card games or WoW CRPGs.

Now if you'll excuse me, there are some kids on my lawn...

 

[Blue]

Couldn't one just simplify this further (the above and the Legend d20 suggestion sounds ridiculously complicated, as well as a huge divergence from D&D class-based core), to just say, you have 3 or 4 categories/tracks whatever of features, and at each level up, you get 2.

Like, that's all you have to worry about at level up. Where are you putting your 2 points? 1 in A track and one in C, this time/level 2...at level 3, 1 in A track again, and one in B...both in D at 4th level level...etc...

Would seem to make for a very simple game, just placing your 2 points every level, within a game of endless options to piece together and keep track of prerequisites and such.

It would be...different.

The issue with that is that players love to specialize. You'd end up with just advancing two tracks to get your late-track goodies (even if it's just the same +1 bonus you got before - but now stacking), and anyone who tried to be well-rounded by advancing more of their tracks would find themselves being left behind. (Actually, the ability to accidentally make sub-optimal characters is a read design concern.)

Alternately, what the tracks give you trail off. In which case no one will specialize and everyone will end up with about equal amounts of their four tracks, leading to a lot less differentiation between characters where they have overlap in that track.

If you are advancing tracks, I don't see them self-regulating. I think it needs a mechanism to keep characters differently themed even with some overlap in tracks, but keeping them more-or-less balanced.

 

[steeldragons]

The issue with that is that players love to specialize. You'd end up with just advancing two tracks to get your late-track goodies (even if it's just the same +1 bonus you got before - but now stacking), and anyone who tried to be well-rounded by advancing more of their tracks would find themselves being left behind. (Actually, the ability to accidentally make sub-optimal characters is a read design concern.)

Alternately, what the tracks give you trail off. In which case no one will specialize and everyone will end up with about equal amounts of their four tracks, leading to a lot less differentiation between characters where they have overlap in that track.

If you are advancing tracks, I don't see them self-regulating. I think it needs a mechanism to keep characters differently themed even with some overlap in tracks, but keeping them more-or-less balanced.

Well, THAT all sounds terrible to me. Yeah, let's scrap all o' that.

 

[mellored]

Just to play with a sacred cow, need a Necromancer be a traditional caster? Or at least as others are casters, vs. casting rituals to raise the dead as a justification.

For example, could there be a "Pet" class, that gets flavored based on your power source and has subclasses based on if you want one big pet, a horde of minions, a team of moderately powered pets, and if they stay around or you bring them up for the occasion.

So a Pet [Nature] would be a Beastmaster (either ranger-y or druid-y), a Pet [Unlife] would be a traditional Necromancer*, some sort of artificer could have a golem or a horde of arcano-mechanical pets, and a traditional Summoner would be Pet [Arcane].

(*And a "white necromancer" would take a whole different class, so they aren't burning advancement/features on something they wouldn't sure.)

Though perhaps these work better where "Pet" is an advances-every-level sort of thing, but you also have a place for another feel - necromancers might drain life, the beastmaster might want either ranger type or druid type adders, etc.

I could get behind a mechanic + power source.

i.e.
Pick from at-will, pets, short rest, or long rest.
Pick from martial, divine, shadow, arcane, nature, psionic (far realm?), or ???

At-will + ordinary = fighter.
At-will + arcane = warlocks.
At-will + divine = priest.
At-will + psionic = monk.
Short rest + psionic = soul blade
Short rest + divine = paladin.
Daily + psionic = psion.
Daily + divine = cleric.
Pet + Necrotic = necromancer.
Pet + Nature = beastmaster.
etc..

Sort of like 4e's design, except you can level up each track seperately.

So you could be at-will 3/pet 3 + nature 6. And be a barbarian fighting along side his wolves.
Or you could be pet 6 + shadow 2/divine 2/arcane 2. And be summon undead, angles, and elemental.

 

[Wiseblood]

I would have 4 classes Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Races would add a small bonus. No subclasses, no feats, no backgrounds. Fighters get to add proficiency bonus to attack and AC no one else does. Rogues get proficiency bonus to attack and all skills no one else does. Wizards get direct damage and CC spells. Clerics get healing and buff spells. Wizards and clerics both get thematically appropriate utility spells. No invisibility, fly or teleport or create food and water. No Leomunds huts or mansions to hide from adventure in.

Most of this is a knee jerk reaction to players taking hours to make a first level wizard(the record is 6 hours for a 1st level rogue). Then picking spells that circumvent actual adventuring or negate or supercede the abilities of other players.

 

[jmucchiello]

The only change I'd like to see is remove light and medium armor proficiency from the Cleric class and then restructure the domains so that those proficiencies are added back. Maybe have cleric get two "domains" somehow. I just want to see the non-templar cleric be something mechically sound without making them monks.

 

[mellored]

I would have 4 classes Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Races would add a small bonus. No subclasses, no feats, no backgrounds. Fighters get to add proficiency bonus to attack and AC no one else does. Rogues get proficiency bonus to attack and all skills no one else does. Wizards get direct damage and CC spells. Clerics get healing and buff spells. Wizards and clerics both get thematically appropriate utility spells. No invisibility, fly or teleport or create food and water. No Leomunds huts or mansions to hide from adventure in.

Most of this is a knee jerk reaction to players taking hours to make a first level wizard(the record is 6 hours for a 1st level rogue). Then picking spells that circumvent actual adventuring or negate or supercede the abilities of other players.

IMO, treat spells like magic items.

You want to cast fly. Go find someone who has a "Tome of Flight" and get it from them (violently or otherwise).
Bargin with a devil to get "Tome of Eldrich Blast".
Quest for your god to get a "Tome of Cure Wounds".

Probably add some kind of cost to use it as well, like attunement, XP, gold, etc... to learn the spell.


Then the DM can easily control just how magical the world is. You could have 3 copies of Tome of Fireball sitting in a corner shop with 10 copies of "Tome of Burning Hands" sitting in the bargain bin, or you could have it buried deep in an ice dragon's lair, surrounded by an army of ice giants.

 

[Dukey]

Should paladin just a fighter kit? Or is it a fighter/cleric multi-class? Or it's own thing? Is blackguard a paladin?
Is assassin a rogue? How about ninja?
Is ranger just a wilderness? Or rogue just a city ranger?
Are sorcerers just a sub-class of wizard? Are wizard and druids a sub-class of magic user? Or are druids focused on shapechanging?
Is everything psionic all together, or are there different types? Is telepathy different from telekinesis? Is soul knife psionic, or more of a monk thing?
What's the difference between a knight and samurai? Or are they just different names for fighter?
Where do bards go?
If you had full creative control, how would you sort them?

I would do it like the 2nd edition class and kit system structure as much as possible.
That structure was very solid I think as you didnt have to preplan your feats and skills levels ahead.
Based on this structure you can redesign the classes and kits for 6e and make use of the new 6e mechanics.

Paladin is a warrior class. Blackguard is a Paladin sub-class
Assassin is a rogue kit, Ninja is a rogue class.
Ranger is a warrior class. Rogue is a standard class.
Sorcerer is a wizard kit. Wizard is a standard class. Druid is a priest class. Some druids can be focused more on shapechanging than others (Druid kits)
Psionicist is a standard class. Telepathy is different than telekinesis. Soul weapons are spiritual and not psionic.
Knight and Samurai are both kits of the warrior class. They use different weapons, armor and have a different philosophy.
Bard is a rogue class.