D&D 5E What Seven Classes Would You Keep? (and why!)

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ashrym]

I think the Druid and Fighter (or a multiclass thereof) can cover the two sides of the Ranger and Barbarian. Wizard can cover all the arcane classes. Rogue all the sneaky stuff.
The Cleric and Fighter can cover the Paladin. The Bard and Monk simply have awesome fluff.

Not really directed at you but using this post as an example. Based on the logic in the post a bard could cover all the arcane and divine spell casters because of the diverse spell list. What can be rolled into another class can sometimes be reversed the other direction.

It's something to keep in mind with those types of assessments. Quite honestly, all the combat classes could be rolled into fighter / subclass options and all the casters could be rolled into bard / subclass options. The rest is just preference and class bias.

 

[Ashrym]

Quick visual.

Classic 4 dominate as expected.

 

[OB1]

I chose to get rid of the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue because they are the core 4 and I'm feeling contrarian this morning. Also got rid of Ranger because I had to pick a fifth to drop and it's role can be replaced by mixing the right background with a Druid, Ancient's Paladin or Warlock build.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel the same way, but if we strip it down to the big 4, how does one create a bard, monk or barbarian for example.

If it's otherwise 5e-design-style:
the Bard could be a Rogue sub-class with a bit of magic or support auras
Berserker could be a fighter sub-class, like the battlerager in SCAG, but "Barbarian" could be a background.
Monk could be an unarmed-combat-specialist fighter sub-class and/or a mystical/acetic background.

 

[dagger]

I

The 1e PHB (not including the Bard in the appendix) classes on your list: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.

Reason: I'm old and get off my lawn. That, and I have 1e characters with all those classes, so want to keep them.

I voted the same. Love me some 1e/2e

 

[Wiseblood]

Not really directed at you but using this post as an example. Based on the logic in the post a bard could cover all the arcane and divine spell casters because of the diverse spell list. What can be rolled into another class can sometimes be reversed the other direction.

It's something to keep in mind with those types of assessments. Quite honestly, all the combat classes could be rolled into fighter / subclass options and all the casters could be rolled into bard / subclass options. The rest is just preference and class bias.

Save room just have one spell list.

I was thinking the same thing. It would open the door for mistic class whose subclasses could be Monk and Psion. Powers not spells.

Warlock could be the anti-paladin, warlock and summoner.

 

[Gadget]

The the game has been going with thinning the line between divine and arcane magic, I think the cleric could be subsumed into a sorcerer type class. You could have "White Mages" and such, that get access to different spells. I kind of like what Sorcerer (and Warlock) have done with new ways to see magic, so I want to keep one of those. The Ranger has been unsatisfactory in most of the recent editions of the game, so fold that into the Fighter. Same for barbarian. Might as well throw the paladin in as well. Maybe keep the monk around for it's flavor and uniqueness.

 

[Salthorae]

I would keep the 8 2E ones. Big 4 plus.

Ranger
Paladin
Bard
Druid

If I had to cut one if them probably bard.

Actually cut Ranger, if it wasn't 5E I would cut the bard.

Ranger cut because it's not that greatly designed and a fighter/druid or fighter/nature cleric would be close enough.

Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard

I love Bard, Druid, and feel like there is something unique enough to have them included. I also feel like there is a nice place for Warlock as well.

If I had to cut down to 7, I'd have to model Rangers as Fighters and Paladins as Cleric or Fighter types. Sorcerer's would need to be some Wizard subclass or variant or something because I do like that concept of an inborn power/spontaneous caster.

 

[3catcircus]

I picked other. Really it should have been "none of them" instead. I want D&D to no longer be a class/level based system so that you can get even further towards the idea of a actually-effective sword-wielding Gandalf, or a Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or any of a number of fantasy characters that D&D doesn't do a good job of portraying.

I want a lifepath-based system where you could bounce from being a cleric to a administrator to a gladiator, for example, and not do so out of a necessity to take "x levels in this class so I can get these specific abilities."

How many times have we seen ridiculous characters with a string of levels in multiple classes just to get one specific ability out of them?