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

[Don Durito]

Unfamiliar with the system, but possibly. Basically you'd have 4 classes (warrior, specialist, priest, mage), 12+ subclasses (the classes), then themes (sub-classes). All classes would have similar base abilities, with sub-classes providing more detail, then themes even more detail. It could theoretically allow 2 different sub-classes to use the same theme, but I haven't looked into it enough to see if that's viable. It prevents some silly multi-class options, since you can't multi-class into the same type, but I'd probably include an option to take lower level sub-class features within your class (so a paladin could pick up a lower level rage ability instead of a higher level paladin ability). A "Base Game" would have the 4 classes, maybe 8 sub-classes (2 each), then 16 themes (2 each); this may seem like a lot but it's really only 3 choices.

Have a look at Shadow of a Demon Lord.

PCs start at level 1 with 1 of 4 classes: Warrior, Priest, Magician and Rogue. At level 3 they pick up an Expert Class. Then later on they pick up a further Master class.

None of the later class options are gated behind earlier classes. So you can combine classes in any way you like.

 

[5ekyu]

Fighter
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Wizard
Sorcerer
Rogue

Dropping
Warlock, Monk, Ranger, Barbarian, Bard

Imo most of the story potential of the dropped ones can be tagged into the others with backgrounds and perhaps the addition of a few sub-classes can round these out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Simple. I dropped all the "big casters" - the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, and made for a much grittier lower magic game with warlocks being the pinacle of spellcasting.

 

[TwoSix]

Simple. I dropped all the "big casters" - the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, and made for a much grittier lower magic game with warlocks being the pinacle of spellcasting.

Heck, drop paladin and ranger also. All non-casters + warlock would make a really interesting game, emphasizing magic as something external to the caster with possible consequences. I'd probably bring in some 3rd party non-caster classes, focusing on ones that use Intelligence, or the whole party won't have a maximum Int higher than 10.

 

[Remathilis]

Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Just to spite all those "x class should be a subclass of Y" people.

Kill the fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard, and the ranger as collateral damage.

 

[Ashrym]

A new visual

Bard and paladins are holding up well in this and the best class polls. Here is the best class visual for comparison.

combined and weighted

If we consider "the best" and the one's players "want to keep" we get:

• bard
• cleric
• druid
• fighter
• paladin
• rogue
• wizard

The verbal minority has spoken. The moral of statistical gymnastics is "wizards rule, sorcerers drool". Except I prefer meta-magic.

 

[Salthorae]

The verbal minority has spoken. The moral of statistical gymnastics is "wizards rule, sorcerers drool". Except I prefer meta-magic.

Poor Sorcerer... they're my favorite to play even if they're not "the best" class in the game. Something about that un-earned easily tapped power...

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Rogue
Warlock
Wizard

Fighter, Rogue, Wizard - These are the play archetypes. Combat Guy, Skill Monkey, Magic User.

Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger ALL get dumped because a decent version could be made of each of these as Fighter Subclasses.

Sorcerer and Wizard are so similar, if we're cutting we CLEARLY only need one. I prefer Wizard if we can't keep both because more utility.

Honestly, if I had to cut another class, I'd cut Cleric and make a "White Mage" wizard subclass that got heal spells but maybe no evocation spells (lose their better blasting spells). But since I've ALREADY CUT 5 classes, we keep Cleric

Druid, Warlock, and Bard get kept because they each have a unique power set that I feel would be hard to fully capture with a subclass of one of the others.
Druid - Shape Shifting (I would honestly be OK with Druid losing most or all spell casting for increased Wild Shape)
Warlock - Magic system works very differently from the Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid paradigm
Bard - The much maligned All Arounder, whom people hate because they are better at your job than you are. Cutting the Bard is the act of a Coward, Bully, and Fool. Fight me.

 

[MoonSong]

This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.

If you have such a defining choice at first level, you have effectively the same number of classes except for multiclassing. This scheme changes nothing and does more to satisfy an urge for organizing things than actual benefits in play. And the problem, what about the bard? Where do you put the bard?

Sorceror is a little too close to Wizard: Remove the spellbook, and you have the sorceror.

On the other hand, that one detail is huge. Did you see the other thread on the cost of training a wizard? An academic book-learned spellcaster is extremely specific as an archetype. The background for every wizard has to account for the costs and needs of training. That one detail limits wizards to privileged backgrounds (or requires plot contrivances like "I stole a spellbook"). There is very little room for spellcasters of lower classes or for spellcasters that didn't choose to be casters, or for spellcasters that inherited it from another creature.

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.

However, the D&D wizard is so overpowering. I remember the playtest, when they put the mage. Despite it being "generic", it had too much of the wizard on the base class to have room for inborn casters. Sadly most of the people who just see sorcerer as a variant wizard are too blind to what you need in order to actually have one. The only way to have both under the same class is to have wizard as the variant. Or both under a truly generic chassis. Or maybe no at all, such a class would have to be extremely bland.

 

[Shiroiken]

If you have such a defining choice at first level, you have effectively the same number of classes except for multiclassing. This scheme changes nothing and does more to satisfy an urge for organizing things than actual benefits in play.

The goal would be to take the four standard archetypes (classes) and ensure that all related classes use the same basic mechanics, which is exactly what the current class/sub-class system does. All I'm suggesting is taking this excellent concept, and taking it one step further.

I would have four classes: warrior, mage, supplicant, and specialist, and every character among each of those classes would have some defining traits that all would share. Warriors would all be good at combat and share combat related abilities (e.g. Extra Attack). Mages would all access arcane spells, if in different ways, and would share spell related abilities (e.g. Metamagic). Supplicants would access magic thru an intermediary (cleric, druid, and warlock), and would share abilities based on this concept (there is no 5E comparable ability that I know of). Specialists would be characters that focus on skills, tools, and other non-combat, non-magic abilities, and would have abilities that focus on these (e.g Expertise).

And the problem, what about the bard? Where do you put the bard?

The bard is easy (Specialist, same as the Rogue), the one that concerns me most would be a psion, or one that is setting specific (like the Artificer). The problem with these are the same as they are in 5E: existing class concepts from prior editions that simply cannot be fit into an existing class require an entirely new class. The only solution would be to design the four classes (or possibly five if there's a need due to psion) in such a way to incorporate EVERY prior character class in some manner within the framework, which would be a comprehensive nightmare.

On a final note, this was an interesting design theory I worked on in my head, not something that I would ever expect to see as an edition of D&D. In fact, I'd expect it more likely to occur in a game that wants to compete in the same market, but has to use different classes and mechanics to avoid IP issues with WotC. This is where I think the concept would work best, IMO, since you wouldn't have the issues I mentioned above with carryover from prior editions.