D&D 5E What Would Your Perfect 50th PHB Class List Be?

[Baron Opal II]

Artificer - Practitioner of Law
Bard - Master Communicator and Maker of Deals
Cleric - Prophet of the Gods
Druid / Shaman - Mediator between the mortal and spiritual worlds
Fighter - Harbinger of Strife
Ranger - Expert of the Wilds (Non-magical)
Rogue - Expert of the Cities
Paladin - Inspired Defender (Magical, but powers not spells)
Magician - Practitioner of Chaos (Wizard, has spellbook and magical secrets [like Transmuter, Necromancer, &c.] Sorcerer, no spellbook but a reflexive style of magic, wither inborn or tied to a power well [The Pattern, a Lodge, &c.])
Warlock - Bargainer for power, both current form and a type of Pact Binder.

I see barbarians as a subclass of either fighter or ranger. I don't really have a good place for monks, although I could see them as kind of a sorcerer / wuxia type fighter.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

finally, some said it for me.

Which part, Fighting-Man or slicing up ranger? The former is mostly a joke, the latter I'm serious (though I'm surprised no one is defending the ranger).

 

[aco175]

1. Artificer -1, Just never go into it from a feel POV
2. Barbarian
3. Bard
4. Binder
5. Cleric
6. Druid
7. Fighter
8. Monk
9. Paladin
10. Psion
11. Ranger
12. Specialty Priest
13. Sorcerer
14. Swordmage
15. Wizard
Thief +2, had to add this one. Must have been an oversight.

Or is this not one of those threads.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Which part, Fighting-Man or slicing up ranger? The former is mostly a joke, the latter I'm serious (though I'm surprised no one is defending the ranger).

the latter.

1. Artificer -1, Just never go into it from a feel POV
2. Barbarian
3. Bard
4. Binder
5. Cleric
6. Druid
7. Fighter
8. Monk
9. Paladin
10. Psion
11. Ranger
12. Specialty Priest
13. Sorcerer
14. Swordmage
15. Wizard
Thief +2, had to add this one. Must have been an oversight.

Or is this not one of those threads.

we call it the rogue now as it sounds better.

 

[Scribe]

Which part, Fighting-Man or slicing up ranger? The former is mostly a joke, the latter I'm serious (though I'm surprised no one is defending the ranger).

Ranger to me, is just to Druid, what Paladin is to Cleric.

If it's not a partial caster, it's just a Fighter subclass with additional skills.

I don't think I like that.

 

[Minigiant]

Which part, Fighting-Man or slicing up ranger? The former is mostly a joke, the latter I'm serious (though I'm surprised no one is defending the ranger).

The ranger is more that just fighter.

Especially in a D&D where Every single feat of extraordinary trained ability outside of swinging a sword or drawing a bow is a spell or rogue-skill.

Seriously the more lists of caster I see added in this discussion, the more solid the danger's position becomes.

 

[Composer99]

Which part, Fighting-Man or slicing up ranger? The former is mostly a joke, the latter I'm serious (though I'm surprised no one is defending the ranger).

The purpose of the thread is to put forward our class wish lists for the 50th anniversary core rulebooks, not to rehash arguments over the ranger. Suffice to say that those who think the ranger merits its own class who contribute to the thread will include it in their wish lists, and those who don't, won't. Surely, arguing over the ranger can be re-litigated elsewhere?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The ranger is more that just fighter.

Especially in a D&D where Every single feat of extraordinary trained ability outside of swinging a sword or drawing a bow is a spell or rogue-skill.

Seriously the more lists of caster I see added in this discussion, the more solid the danger's position becomes.

I never said the ranger was just a fighter... I just think it's a badly designed class. I've never had a player run a ranger, and I've had numerous 5E games over several years. Their reputation is that they're the weakest class, true or not.

Makes more sense to me to gut the class, take the best bits and give them to other classes.

I don't feel the same way about Paladins... some people actually do like those, even if others don't.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The purpose of the thread is to put forward our class wish lists for the 50th anniversary core rulebooks, not to rehash arguments over the ranger. Suffice to say that those who think the ranger merits its own class who contribute to the thread will include it in their wish lists, and those who don't, won't. Surely, arguing over the ranger can be re-litigated elsewhere?

If you want this thread to be a dialogue between people on the forum, there's going to be debate on the classes themselves. If you just want this thread to be people dropping they're wishlist and walking away, I'm doubtful how long this thread will even live.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you want this thread to be a dialogue between people on the forum, there's going to be debate on the classes themselves. If you just want this thread to be people dropping they're wishlist and walking away, I'm doubtful how long this thread will even live.

I'd rather the thread fade away quickly than be derailed re-litigating arguments that don't matter about a class that will never not be in the PHB.

Plenty of discussion has happened in this thread that isn't what you're trying to do with this. Please stop derailing the thread.