• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Essential Classes: A Thought Experiment

After Xanathar's came out I was able to put my finger on something that was bothering me about some classes/subclasses. It was starting to feel like some were getting very heavily into the design space of others. With this thought I starting thinking about what made up the essential nature of various classes, roles, and archetypes and what it would look like to pare things down a little. I thought it was time to open up the idea and see if anyone else sees any of that themselves and what others might think of a slightly more reductionist approach to the classes.

As a disclaimer, this whole concept requires certain optional rules, like multiclassing and feats, and as such drifts from the design philosophy of simplicity and may require some system mastery. It also may attack traditional staples of the game.

The first thing I noticed were the options that looked like they wanted to be multiclass characters without actually multiclassing. The big ones for me immediately are Arcane Trickster, Bladesinger, College of Swords, Eldritch Knight and to a further extent Paladin and Ranger.

The second category for me are concepts that are very similar in flavor, if not mechanics. The big one (and this is controversial in my local gaming group) is that cleric and warlock boil down to someone who derives power from some sort of powerful being, often in exchange for service or devotion (though I also enjoy trickery and mischief as causes).

The third category is the reverse of the second, groupings of similar mechanics but are divided on flavor. If I mention an unarmored warrior with great maneuverability and an unusual mechanic to augment their conventional attack, do you first think of a barbarian or a monk? On top of that one I tend to think of sorcerer and wizard in 5e not having a lot to separate themselves mechanically.

My early look at the current classes had these results:

Barbarian - Fold it into a superclass with the monk, make rage a subclass feature with the fast movement, unarmored AC and related the core featues.

Bard - On the fence, I could see it falling into a multiclass fighter/cleric depending on domains (see below), but it may be more trouble than it is worth to separate inspiration as a mechanic for a particular domain.

Cleric - Oh boy. I fold this one into warlock hard. Not sure if it should keep the weird short rest spell slots or keep the cleric conventional spell casting. The part I am fairly confident on is that invocations are a great model for domain abilities, create a long list of them and make sure most of them go with a particular domain (or a couple) and create a fairly modular caster where your choice of patron (deity) feels like it really matters.

Druid - On the fence a little, I could see it falling into a properly domained cleric, but given other changes (see ranger), I think it may have enough nature and shapechange stuff to keep it on its own, it will have a lot more of the ranger abilities relating to knowledge and manuevering in the wild, tracking, etc.

Fighter - A staple, they need to stay if only as a baseline for other things to be judged against. Fighter will probably get some of the other subclasses and is a multiclassing essential for some concepts. Eldritch knight goes away and becomes a fighter/caster multiclass.

Monk - See barbarian. Folding those two classes together, the monk specific stuff becoming subclassed. The weirder subclasses (like four elements) probably becomes a multiclass.

Paladin - Gone entirely. Base concept is a fighter/cleric. Some of the iconic paladin abilities like smite and grace can become domain "invocations"

Ranger - Just like paladin the base concept feels like a multiclass. Move some of the typical ranger abilities into druid and some of the more scouty type abilities into rogue. Maybe make favored enemy a feat, since it doesn't feel like a fit for druid.

Rogue - Another one that stays as a solid baseline. It will pick up some ranger scout/track traits and probably be a frequent piece in multiclass builds. If someone really wanted to fold it into fighter I'd understand, but it seems like more trouble than it is worth. Arcane trickster becomes a rogue/caster of some sort.

Sorcerer - Either wizard gets a sorcerer variant without a book and subclasses start at level 1 or sorcerer gets a wizard variant that uses a spellbook.

Warlock - Folded into cleric (see above), especially now that divine and arcane kinds of magic have basically nothing to distinguish them anymore.

Wizard - Either a sorcerer subclass or the master class for sorcerer. Whichever it is may get some of the warlock design space too.


As I mentioned, just something I am playing with and definitely not fully fleshed out. I am curious if anyone has any interesting approaches.

You know what I see with all of this DIY MC, feats, adding bit & pieces to classes, & sub-classing going on here?
A lot of wasted time/effort. Probably to get to a less satisfying point (because of lack of enough feats) in the end.

Consider: Let's say I want to play a Paladin. 1st? I have to make a character who's NOT a paladin - either a fighter or cleric. Making whatever series of choices at character creation & up through ? lvs of play it takes to gain features xyz. Then I have to MC into the other. Again, making all kinds of choices over x lvs. And then finally somewhere after that I spend more invocations or feats to finally approximate what I wanted to play originally.
How many lvs did it take me to manage this?
At what lv does this campaign peter out?

So a new campaign begins & I repeat the laborious effort for some other class....

OR
I could just join someone else's actual D&D game & play a 1st lv paladin etc on day 1.

Instead of reinventing the whole wheel, why don't you try & imagine the game we have as being (mostly) the end product of you're system. All that tedious work of combining stuff to make a lot of the classes like paladin, casters, monks/barbarians etc has already been done off-screen, before play began.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

How many levels do you have to wait to play the Paladin you want to now? 2 for spells or divine smite, 3 for archetype, 5 for mutiattack, 6 for an aura, etc. it’s the same, except you get to say “I’m officially a Paladin”. In the other system, you can call yourself whatever you want, whenever you want. Still takes 2 levels to get fighting ability and spells. Still takes time to get to play the Paladin you want, you’re just in more control of that progression.
 

Having classes that are half way between other classes is the best way to do multiclassing.

A Ranger is a Fighter/Druid and a Paladin is a Fighter/Cleric and that is a good thing. Subclasses further this ability to multiclass.

Some classes are alternatives to the main classes. Sorcerer and Druid come to mind here. I think that is okay. If we wanted fewer classes these would be the ones to cut, making them subclasses instead.
 

You know what I see with all of this DIY MC, feats, adding bit & pieces to classes, & sub-classing going on here?
A lot of wasted time/effort. Probably to get to a less satisfying point (because of lack of enough feats) in the end.

Consider: Let's say I want to play a Paladin. 1st? I have to make a character who's NOT a paladin - either a fighter or cleric. Making whatever series of choices at character creation & up through ? lvs of play it takes to gain features xyz. Then I have to MC into the other. Again, making all kinds of choices over x lvs. And then finally somewhere after that I spend more invocations or feats to finally approximate what I wanted to play originally.
How many lvs did it take me to manage this?
At what lv does this campaign peter out?

So a new campaign begins & I repeat the laborious effort for some other class....

OR
I could just join someone else's actual D&D game & play a 1st lv paladin etc on day 1.

Instead of reinventing the whole wheel, why don't you try & imagine the game we have as being (mostly) the end product of you're system. All that tedious work of combining stuff to make a lot of the classes like paladin, casters, monks/barbarians etc has already been done off-screen, before play began.

Mostly because my job is boring and I amuse myself with random thought experiments.
 


After Xanathar's came out I was able to put my finger on something that was bothering me about some classes/subclasses. It was starting to feel like some were getting very heavily into the design space of others. With this thought I starting thinking about what made up the essential nature of various classes, roles, and archetypes and what it would look like to pare things down a little. I thought it was time to open up the idea and see if anyone else sees any of that themselves and what others might think of a slightly more reductionist approach to the classes.
If you're worried about certain class concepts overlapping with other concepts, and you're open to the idea of getting back to basics, then there's absolutely no reason why you can't just cut the stuff that's redundant. In particular, you could probably get away with having either the sorcerer or the wizard, depending on what works better for your setting.

Here's how I would organize things, into core classes and subclasses:

Fighter
- Paladin
- Barbarian
- Monk
- Champion

Rogue
- Thief
- Bard
- Ranger

Mage
- Elemental (Draconic)
- Wild
- Scholarly (Wizard)

Cleric
- Priest
- Druid
- Warlock

But that's a system I would use without mult-classing, which is why I kept Paladin around as a sub-class. If you were going to include multi-classing, then you could safely ditch Paladin, and probably also Bard.
 

To me, it is multi-classing that is the hack on top of a class based system that is more of a sore thumb; its trying to have your cake and eat it too. As a class based system, D&D has always been an package of abilities that grows with your character, almost the antithesis of point-buy, cost based build system. I don't think ala carte multiclass offers a satisfying resolution to this issue. Now 5e does have the issue of a lot of overlap between different archetype than ever before, as the classes listed above are all variations of a Gish-type concept. However, I would argue that the Paladin &--to a lesser extent--the Ranger, benefit greatly from having their own spell list and abilities tailored to their archetype and concept.



I would not categorize bargaining/selling your soul as "service or devotion", but IMHO the warlock has more overlap with the Sorcerer that hinders the concept of both classes.




A really can't see it. Monks are traditionally contemplative, wisdom focused classes that have a very different flavor and story than a traditional fantasy 'Barbarian'. If anything, a barbarian can be a fighter sub-class/background.

Most of the rest of these fall into a classic reductionist argument that could be reduced to one "Hero" class and NPCs. It is a spectrum that can be taken too far in either direction for most people. You can't have a (sub)class for every little thing under the sun, yet you also can't boil everything down to a couple of classes the 'cover' everything in a generic, flavorless way either. I find it interesting that 5e tries to temper this by having classes with sub-classes to cover (minor?) variations around the class, yet as evidenced by the Hexblade/blade'lock issue, the sub-classes can only do so much and sometimes you need more.

I think the barbarian/monk idea is that both of them could be seen as entering a supercharged physical state for a temporary period (rage for the barbarian and flurry of blows for the monk). If you had "entered a supercharged state" and left off the physical for subclasses, having psions/psychics/mystics be people who entered a supercharged mental state for a temporary period.
 


The problem (as Yarael has pointed out) is that most attempts to fold classes into broader "superclasses" end up abstracting a class down to nothing. Literally every class abstracts down to "hit it with a weapon" or "hit it with a spell". So these thought experiments end up in one of two places.

1.) Bending and contorting classes to create the superclasses, often at the expense of the original feel of the class. A good example of this is trying to make Druid into a Cleric domain. It sounds good in theory (hell, the Nature domain is kinda aiming for that spot already) but once you realize how many spells a druid loses (and gains cleric spells in return for), the flavor losses (like the natural armor restriction) or the torture of trying making wild shape work as a channel divinity or similar mechanic, you realize the Druid Domain emulates the class poorly as its been known previously.

2.) The dilution of everything into a pseudo- classless "point buy" design where every ability is ala-carte and everything must be carefully watched to avoid hyperbroken specializations, degenerate combos, or characters spread so thin they can do everything poorly and nothing well. Its multi-classing on steroids, as currently even powerful combos like sor-locks or pal-locks require some trade off (often having to sink several levels into getting the good stuff). Basically, such systems usually end up with characters cherry-picking the most synergistic combos or mired in a bunch of unsynergistic abilities that means they do little well. Woe to the group that has both on the same team!

And that's even if we agree what goes where! Someone might see a monk as as akin to a fighter (multiple attacks and damaging) while others see him closer to a rogue (agile skirmisher that can't take a punch). Is a bard more of cleric (since she can heal, raise dead, and other support stuff) or a rogue (expertise, wide selection of skills) or a wizard (focus on charms, illusions, and debuffs)? What's more important to the bard?

Personally, I think the 12 PHB classes are good on their own. I think psionics needs its own class, and that artificer is just too different to cram under another class well, but I think most of the other 3.5 and 4e classes were mostly slight variants and they now work decently well as subs. YMMV and all that.
 

If you're worried about certain class concepts overlapping with other concepts, and you're open to the idea of getting back to basics, then there's absolutely no reason why you can't just cut the stuff that's redundant. In particular, you could probably get away with having either the sorcerer or the wizard, depending on what works better for your setting.

Here's how I would organize things, into core classes and subclasses:

Fighter
- Paladin
- Barbarian
- Monk
- Champion

Rogue
- Thief
- Bard
- Ranger

Mage
- Elemental (Draconic)
- Wild
- Scholarly (Wizard)

Cleric
- Priest
- Druid
- Warlock

But that's a system I would use without mult-classing, which is why I kept Paladin around as a sub-class. If you were going to include multi-classing, then you could safely ditch Paladin, and probably also Bard.

Perhaps it's a hold over from a previous edition, or maybe just because of Aragorn, but I always associate Ranger with Fighter over Rogue.

Go figure.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top