D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[EzekielRaiden]

True. The "doesn't tread on the concept of another class" idea was something I saw in PF1's Advanced Class Guide a while back. That book had an entire chapter on how to create character classes, and one of the first things it talked about was the concept behind a given class. If the concept behind a class you were designing treaded on the concept of another class, there was the risk of rendering the latter obsolete. Their opinion, not mine. The ACG had 10 hybrid classes which did some treading on the two parent classes they were designed from.

Hybrid Classes – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Oh, sure. And yeah there's something pretty funny about Paizo of all people saying that you shouldn't tread on other classes when they wrote the Arcanist which is arguably better than being either Sorcerer or Wizard. (Unless you play the Wizard archetype that lets you steal from the Arcanist. Then it's best to be Wizard again. I have some experience in that regard.)

More relevant, just meaning to note that there are....shall we say highly controversial statements that can be made about certain classes and whether they tread on something else or not.

By default, those are all different concepts, and not particularly close even.

The issue is with the various flood of Subclasses, that pull things closer.

Isn't that pretty much the second intentional and explicit purpose of subclasses? The first being to give life to standard concepts (like cleric domains), the second to enable smooth class mixology (like Eldritch Knight) to lower the burden carried by multiclassing and such, and the third to reduce (some would say eliminate) the need to create new classes?

I'd probably have a PHB with 8 classes, followed by a PHB 2 with another 8 classes released like 5 years later.

Good stuff, but five years is a long time. I would suggest two years. That's enough time to get serious, real feedback from actual players in the wild, to see the optimizers pick apart what you've done so you can avoid any pitfalls you fell into the first time. Start the open playtest around the 6-9 month mark with basic second- or third-draft stabs at the first five levels. That way, folks know you aren't abandoning well loved core classes, but giving them the time and space they need to sing.

 

[Lanefan]

If I were designing the next edition, I would:

1.) Combine the Barbarian and Fighter. There is not enough distinction between the core of the two classes. Adding the barbarian unarmored defense and rage at 3rd level would also limit the 'dip it to win it' mentality.
2.) Add Artificer and Psion to the core classes. These each fill roles that are not addressed by existing classes (when you execute them well). My versions would be more aligned to the archetypes than we've seen in recent editions. A Psion would not, for example, use spells like a cleric, druid, bard or arcane spellcaster. Nor would Artificers - who would use steampunk science to build contraptions that function like magic items, but do not rely upon magic.

For whatever reason, while I love the idea of an Artificer class I just can't get behind the idea of it being a playable field adventurer. It should be a stay-at-home non-adventuring class (i.e. mostly for NPCs) that gains xp from what it builds rather than from what it kills.

3.) Combine the Ranger and Rogue. I believe we lose a little bit of the core concept of these classes when we try to differentiate them - so don't. Make a single stealthy class that deals extra damage through hitting the sweet spot - but use subclasses to take them the route of the natural spellcaster, the thief, or the beastmaster. I would also roll the concept of the 4E Avenger in here as well as a sublass option.

Sorry, hard pass on this one. It's their slow steady drift toward Rogue over the editions that's killed Rangers. Push them hard back toward being woodland warriors a la 1e, and suddenly their niche reappears.

4.) Combine the Cleric and Paladin. There are too many times when we artifically differentiate a concept. There is no need to do so here - a Holy Warrior is a Holy Warrior.
5.) Combine Sorcerer and Wizard - but primarily for administrative purposes. I'd have these spellcasters have the ability to harness innate magics if they gain access to them (through heritage or corruption of their bodies), but also to use their intellect to master magics. Regardless of which way they accessed magics it would pull from a single source of spell power available to them. Some would focus only on study and mastery while others would go for the simplicity of utilizing innate magics. Psion is more distinct - to me - than Sorcerer and Wizard are.

If you're going to add Psion I'd fold both Sorcerer and Warlock into it, under the 'spontaneous caster' umbrella; leaving Wizard etc. as the 'study-based casters'.

I'd also redesign spellcasting so that we start to see higher level spellcasters be able to cast lower level spells an unlimited number of times - turning 1st, 2nd and eventually 3rd level spells into cantrips for them.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Casters already have more than enough going for them at high levels, giving them this would really dial them to eleven.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd probably have a PHB with 8 classes, followed by a PHB 2 with another 8 classes released like 5 years later.

Or, they could slice it differently, like an introductory box set that covers the big 4 classes and Apprentice Tier.

Then each new set adds levels & subclasses to the original 4, and new classes, as well.

 

[Lanefan]

I will say, however, that I do think that Magic the Gathering would be an interesting place to start when considering archetypes for at least caster classes. The five colors of the pie, IMHO, provide a pretty good spread of both archetypes and playstyles, especially for different varieties of mages. I will not go so far as to say that this is what D&D should do, but I would at least consider this design space.

So something like:

Black = Necromancer
Green = Druid
White = Cleric
Red = Blast Mage or Evoker
Blue = Illusionist

Sure, that works as a start. You might have to add in a few colours to support some subdivision - most notably "Cleric" covers a huge amount of ground here - but the idea is good.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Or, they could slice it differently, like an introductory box set that covers the big 4 classes and Apprentice Tier.

Then each new set adds levels & subclasses to the original 4, and new classes, as well.

Just anything less than 12 in the initial book. I'm convinced that we have so many flaws and problems with the current classes because they're trying to push out so much at once with the first PHB. I'd much rather have less classes to start with, where each of them is high quality and balanced.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Seeing people want to merge martials into each other when we've got so few martials already is depressing.

You'd have an edition with almost no martials, and then people would start saying "the martial doesn't fit with all the other mechanics and themes in the game, and is clearly out of place. Lets get rid of it".

 

[Aldarc]

So something like:

Black = Necromancer
Green = Druid
White = Cleric
Red = Blast Mage or Evoker
Blue = Illusionist

Sure, that works as a start. You might have to add in a few colours to support some subdivision - most notably "Cleric" covers a huge amount of ground here - but the idea is good.

I would paint these classes with a broader brush,* but this is the basic idea. I think that these are fairly popular archetypes that you can find represented in a variety of games.

* For example, I would broadly make Black the "edge lord" dark caster. The Dark Arts go here. Or Green would be the "nature mage." Blue would definitely be more than just the illusionist, as blue is also about "meta magic" in the sense of magical counters, spell manipulation, trickery, etc.

Being a "priest" would be more a matter of the background than anything else. A Black priest is basically just a cultist or warlock. A Blue priest would probably be something akin to a psionist. A White priest would probably be your standard healing, life, light cleric. And so on...

The goal here being looking at the archetypes and playstyles of what people want out of their mages. There's something to be said for the simplicity of "if you just wanna blast things with your spells and make things go boom, pick this mage class."

 

[Minigiant]

Based on that: I will double-down on “nearly everything on the list.” I prefer PF2’s approach of having lots of classes woth subclasses, if any, only described a small-ish aspect like favored skills. Trying to jam swashbuckler into fighter weakens the ability to deliver on either fantasy well.

I agree.

Almost any major fantasy concept can be expanded into a full class. And even some minor ones.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So something like:

Black = Necromancer
Green = Druid
White = Cleric
Red = Blast Mage or Evoker
Blue = Illusionist

Sure, that works as a start. You might have to add in a few colours to support some subdivision - most notably "Cleric" covers a huge amount of ground here - but the idea is good.

One of my other "what does the core game shape look like" things has Martial (Red), Divine (White), Primal (Green), Arcane (Blue), Shadow (Black). Psionics is colorless/"purple," again being the "DIY, prepare for things to not work as expected" option. I suppose Artificer could be another take on "colorless," working with magic items and artifacts, but that isn't an idea I'd put into this concept before.

Martial shares an emphasis skill and cunning with Shadow, and an emphasis on armor and weapons with Divine. Divine shares armor/weapons with Martial, and buffing/support with Primal. Primal then shares elemental effects with Arcane, and Arcane shares forbidden knowledge and enchantment/illusion with Shadow. It's not the same as the MTG wheel (where White is opposed to Red, not its ally), but the use of the wheel to specify what each part does and how they relate to one another is fully intended.

 

[Aldarc]

I would potentially make martial colorless. For each color, one could make a spiritual and intellectual tradition. So for example, Red could have both boom boom Elementalism but also Shamanism for its spiritual tradition. Or Blue could have an intellectual Wizardry tradition and a spiritual Psionic tradition.