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

[jmartkdr2]

I’m on board with dropping the core four to focus on classes with stronger flavor and identity - to bring it down to seven I’d also move artificer and monk to non-core as they don’t fit all settings.

Cleric is mostly covered by paladin and warlock, rogue is split between bard and ranger, wizards are split between bard, druid, sorcerer and warlock, and fighters are spit between barbarian, ranger, paladin and warlock.

What you “lose” is heroes who don’t use any magic. Which I’m okay with since I never really see them in practice - magic weapons always show up at some point.

 

[Remathilis]

Tank.
Healer.
Damage dealer.

 

[Dreamscape]

Rogue (because everyone else is just a supporting character).

 

[Blue Orange]

Decompose Paladin into Fighter/Cleric, Ranger into Fighter/Druid, and treat the Sorcerer and Warlock as Wizards with a different power source or ability score...I'd keep the Bard around because a lot of people like the social aspect and there's no other class that's specialized for that. The Monk's kind of unique, though I'd rename it 'Martial Artist'. Barbarian I guess could be a variant fighter.

You could definitely reskin the Druid as a Nature Cleric. I think 2e did.

So I guess C/F/M/T (sorry, C/F/R/W) plus Bard, Monk, Druid?

 

[Blue Orange]

Tank.
Healer.
Damage dealer.

That's for MMORPGs though. The thief's or bard's role is harder to computerize.

 

[Remathilis]

That's for MMORPGs though. The thief's or bard's role is harder to computerize.

Not really. A thief is a damage dealer with a healthy side of exploration, the bard is a healer with social skills. Having a combat role does not preclude the ability to have an exploration or social one, a lesson D&D has tried to learn but fails to internalize. (Which is why the fighter ends up so boring when initiative isn't being rolled).

Flippantness aside, one of the few ideas I wished had carried over from 4e was classes have a primary role. It made it so that it was easy to swap a class and still have a role covered. A bard, cleric, and artificer all filled the same healer role, something they don't really do equally well in 5e.

 

[LoganRan]

Cleric, thief, warrior, and wizard. That's all you need. The rest are minor variations on those or combinations thereof.

You could even drop the cleric as it's really a divine wizard with a bit of warrior.

I think the cleric is "undroppable" because it is the original gish: fighting man and magic-user combined. Multiclassing is evil (chaotic evil at that), thus the cleric is required for the martial+magic combo.

Other than that quibble, I agree. The Core 4 are all that are really necessary due to the reasons listed below:

• Barbarian: Fighter in a loincloth with anger management issues
• Bard: No, just No. Seriously, No.
• Druid: Cleric with Nature domain
• Monk: Keep your kung-fu out of my medieval fantasy game, dammit
• Paladin: Cleric with a stick up their bum
• Ranger: Fighter trying to get their wilderness survival Boy Scout merit badge
• Sorcerer: Wizard who is too cool for school (don't need no fancy book learnin)
• Warlock: Arcane cleric (Actually, this is the one class I might consider adding to the Core 4 because serving Cthulhu! is awesome)

 

[Remathilis]

I think the cleric is "undroppable" because it is the original gish: fighting man and magic-user combined. Multiclassing is evil (chaotic evil at that), thus the cleric is required for the martial+magic combo.

Other than that quibble, I agree. The Core 4 are all that are really necessary due to the reasons listed below:

• Barbarian: Fighter in a loincloth with anger management issues
• Bard: No, just No. Seriously, No.
• Druid: Cleric with Nature domain
• Monk: Keep your kung-fu out of my medieval fantasy game, dammit
• Paladin: Cleric with a stick up their bum
• Ranger: Fighter trying to get their wilderness survival Boy Scout merit badge
• Sorcerer: Wizard who is too cool for school (don't need no fancy book learnin)
• Warlock: Arcane cleric (Actually, this is the one class I might consider adding to the Core 4 because serving Cthulhu! is awesome)

At its core, all classes are variants of "swing a weapon" and/or "cast a spell". Which is why I feel that attempts to justify reducing the number of classes are always arbitrary. One person might argue that fight/magic/skill is the best breakdown, while another says by martial/magic/hybrid combat style. One man's useless is another's essential.

 

[CleverNickName]

Between the new Diablo game and this thread, I've got the urge again to create a classless expansion (an "Adventurer" class) for 5E.
Forget classes, subclasses, multiclassing, etc. I think all we really need are ability/skill trees.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Between the new Diablo game and this thread, I've got the urge again to create a classless expansion (an "Adventurer" class) for 5E.
Forget classes, subclasses, multiclassing, etc. I think all we really need are ability/skill trees.

Can I play a multiclass Adventurer/Homebody?