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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Every class ever published for D&D.

That's . . . uh . . . that's a lot. Especially because you didn't say "officially published" or "excluding the ones that share the same name, but are very different mechanically/thematically".

 

[MoonSong]

We don't have both a fighter and a warrior class. Or a thief, rogue, and burglar. Or a cleric and a priest.

So it's downright weird that D&D has mages/wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks.

The sorcerer and the warlock aren't strong archetypes. They were added to the game during the 3rd edition for purely mechanical reasons, so that there could be "wizards, but non-Vancian" for players to choose from. (A mechanical chestnut that doesn't even apply to later editions!) The rationalizations for how they work make it worse IMO — "warlocks are wizards, but Faustian" is kind of cool, but then it leaves the wizard a bit ill-defined, since pact magic usually how most magic works in folklore and old literature; and "sorcerers are wizards, but eugenic" is frankly kind of icky in this day and age (even if Harry Potter and Star Wars make "magical ability is just a genetic trait of those lucky enough to come from superior bloodlines" sadly familiar to present-day audiences).

So my solution is to make warlocks and sorcerers psionic sub-classes. Then you can go all out with points rather than slots as the central mechanic, and you can lean into either the Lovecraftian angle or the New Agey witchcraft angle for warlocks; and re-flavor sorcerers as Dr. Strange style "masters of the mystic arts" rather than dragon-blooded arcane Übermenchen.

I don't know, traditions around the world about magic are very varied. Magic as inherently faustian is very deeply from Abrahamic (specially Protestant) tradition. On other places, there are other approaches. For example, folklore where I live strongly supports the idea of magical bloodlines and magic as a gift. I think Japanese folklore is similar. And let's not forget about Greek myths, where Circe -the ur example of a Sorceress- had personal power derived from being the daughter of a god and being blessed by a deitiy was a source of magic. Even more famous magic users are closer to a sorcerer -Merlin? totes a sorcerer, with a demon father and all, Gandalf? Descended angel and thus a sorcerer-, and let's not forget that many depictions in popular culture fit the bill -Sabrina, Samantha, Jeannie... - On the other hand, the D&D wizard is its own special brand of magic user that is anything but poorly defined. In fact it has the opposite problem, it is extremely rigidly defined to the point of being an idiosyncrasy with little precedent in literature and pop culture. And well, at least to me the wizard is essentially a privileged out of touch aristocrat/plutocrat, while sorcerers and warlock are more everyday people, who just happen to be special/worked to be special instead of using their parents money to gain arcane power.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Artificer
Avenger
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Shaman
Sorcerer
Swordmage
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard

I could be flexible and accept dropping the Shaman, Artificer, Swordmage, and Avenger, basically in that order. I very much hope they DO actually add a Warlord in 2024. We'll see if they do or not.

 

[Minigiant]

One reason why I'd want a Avenger class is for potential Flagellant and Fanatic subclasses.

Just some half baked dude or dudette high on religious crazy swinging a giant bloody whip, chain, or greatsword in wide circles.

 

[squibbles]

Fighting Man - Someone who doesn't use magic
Priest - Someone who uses divine magic
Magic User - Someone who uses arcane magic.

Thief's not needed!

Fighter - Someone who doesn't use magic (season with about 50% more option complexity, and let's not forget about the ladies y'all)
Magic User - Someone who uses magic (but melt off the narrowly 'wizard' fluff/mechanics, such that the name change is accurate)

No divine/arcane distinction needed!

I say all that somewhat flippantly, but it's actually what I'd prefer (and there's an awesome--free--OSR clone that does this). If I had my druthers the classes would be 'Warrior' and 'Sorcerer'--but that's perhaps too specific a flavor.

Of course, recognizing that it would be insane for WotC to remove 80% of the player options from their core book, I would allow all other currently existing classes to be reprinted as customization options in Chapter 6... after the feats section. Everyone would still use them, sure, (ask your DM) but the subtext would be unmistakable.

And, moving forward from there, any additional classes would arrive with an Unearthed Arcana-esque taint, such that they could be plausibly denied to exist as options (ask your DM). Simultaneously, the very obvious additions, such as the "ranger which has no magic and is therefore not a class but merely a fighter who lives in the woods" and the "magic user but somehow gods and/or demons have gotten involved" would be created as subclasses for fighter and magic user.

I want multiclassing to stay, but honestly it's awfully done in 5e. It feels like something they threw out in the last hour of a Friday afternoon before releasing the edition.

Agreed.

And with the above changes in mind, WotC could rewrite the artificer, barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, and warlock so that they don't cause so many problems when used with the muticlassing rules.

I love these kinds of threads because they expose what the community (well, the Enworld community) thinks of classes. I've noticed a few trends on my non-scientific observations.

Class reorganization tends towards two extremes: a large collection of micro-classes (very specific classes that hold to a single concept, often split off of current classes) or very broad overclasses that can absorb multiple current classes into them, differentiated by openly flexible class features. There is a group of people who prefer the system as is (plus or minus a few classes) but most pipe-dreaming ends up on either end of the scale.

True, and well observed! But surely you must admit that this is a natural consequence of the cognitive dissonance induced by the hodge-podge of micro-classes and overclasses that were included together in the PHB.

On the other hand, the D&D wizard is its own special brand of magic user that is anything but poorly defined. In fact it has the opposite problem, it is extremely rigidly defined to the point of being an idiosyncrasy with little precedent in literature and pop culture. And well, at least to me the wizard is essentially a privileged out of touch aristocrat/plutocrat, while sorcerers and warlock are more everyday people, who just happen to be special/worked to be special instead of using their parents money to gain arcane power.

I take great umbrage, friend, at the implication that any proper wizard has achieved esoteric credentialing by means other than merit! Why, sorcerous apprenticeships are attained through only the finest standards of objective divination and testing. And, surely, for a upstanding profession whose works include flight, teleportation, the manipulation of energy, and the creation of new matter from nothing, it isn't beyond reason that a few practitioners might, perhaps, at times, by some, be considered to be slightly 'out of touch'.

---

Apologies, the snark was strong with me today... and seems to have gotten worse in the process of posting.

 

[Remathilis]

Fighter - Someone who doesn't use magic (season with about 50% more option complexity, and let's not forget about the ladies y'all)
Magic User - Someone who uses magic (but melt off the narrowly 'wizard' fluff/mechanics, such that the name change is accurate)

No divine/arcane distinction needed!.

The typical method of pairing down classes always goes something like this:

• There are too many/arbitrary classes in D&D. Let's fix that!
• Well, we can combine similar classes into one, like making barbarian a part of fighter.
• Well, we've paired them down to like five or six, but D&D has classically only had the Core Four, so we can make the outliers fit into them.
• A.) OD&D only had three classes, we should replicate that and remove thief. B.) Magic is magic, let's combine mage and priest into one caster class.
• Actually, all you need is sword user and magic user. Two classes.
• Eh, screw it. Let's just go classless and allow you complete customization.

Not everyone gets to the final step: inertia to removing all guide rails is strong. But if you've gotten down to two, you just need balance magic costs and you can go full classless like M&M.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The typical method of pairing down classes always goes something like this:

• There are too many/arbitrary classes in D&D. Let's fix that!
• Well, we can combine similar classes into one, like making barbarian a part of fighter.
• Well, we've paired them down to like five or six, but D&D has classically only had the Core Four, so we can make the outliers fit into them.
• A.) OD&D only had three classes, we should replicate that and remove thief. B.) Magic is magic, let's combine mage and priest into one caster class.
• Actually, all you need is sword user and magic user. Two classes.
• Eh, screw it. Let's just go classless and allow you complete customization.

Not everyone gets to the final step: inertia to removing all guide rails is strong. But if you've gotten down to two, you just need balance magic costs and you can go full classless like M&M.

why does no one go with five or six then?

 

[AtomicPope]

My list would be the standard:

Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard

The big changes would be I'd add subclasses that transcended single classes:
Beastmaster (Druid or Ranger)
Infernalist (Cleric, Wizard or Warlock)
Weapon Specialist (Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, or Monk)
Wildmagic (Sorcerer or Wizard)

Shifting the focus away from new classes into subclasses is a strength of 5e as system. It accomplishes what 2e and 3e couldn't, and what 4e wanted. Those exotic weapons people talk about would be better served as subclass features rather than overhauling the system.

 

[HammerMan]

Artificer
Bard
Beguiler*
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Illusionist*
Knight (renamed paladin since I would include no religious oaths like the crown)
Monk
Mystic*
Necromancer
Oracle*
Psion
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Swordmage**
Warden**
Warlock
Warlord**
Warmage*

*break the wizard class up, make it so if you can know spells you have to specialize no one can know ALL arcane spells. there would be overlap with spells, but like cleric/druid has overlap but also special spells just there own. This also helps Artificer warlocks Sorcerers and swordmage have there own spells too.
** not married to these names any gish name can replace swordmage (I actually liked someones suggestion of Arkanight) but it gets the point across

 

[HammerMan]

This is absolutely not what WotC is going to do, but if I were in charge....

• All classes go only to Level 10
• Move all class features to be within those levels
• Characters can continue to level to 20 or beyond, but they must do so in a different class

I joked about something like this right before the announcement.

Imagine taking all the classes that can't cast 9th level spells (so remove wizard, bard, druid, cleric, and warlock) take all 20 levels (including subclass and cap stone but not ASI) and squishing it down to 13 levels... then make up a 15th, 17th and 19th level ability for each class that is equal to (in both power and utility) a 7th, 8th and 9th level spell... then build better capstones for everyone (now that includes the full casters)