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

[Minigiant]

I once pondered an class heavy old school game and in it it included

A Barbarian Class
A Berserker Class
A Monk Class

The Barbarian differed from the Berserker as it focused on the concept of the Barbarian being a warrior from an outside culture with less access to advanced tech and therefore leaned on lower quality armor, being unarmored, unarmed Strikes, and simple weapons.

This made the Barbarian and Monk 2 sides of the Unarmed/Simple Unarmored/Light Warrior coin.

The Barbarian leaned chaotic fury, focused on Toughness and used CON for AC and Damage.

The Monk leaned on Disciplined calm, focused on Will, and used WIS for AC and Damage.

The Berserker just raged.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, most classes don’t have the martial weapons, variety in choice of armor, and armed combat capabilities that define the fighter. Those that do (typically barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger) are part of the “fighter core class”. I'm not sure what you mean by other weapon-using classes, I suppose you mean thief/rogue? They don’t generally have martial weapons and have a low level of raw combat capability comparable to the magic-user in early editions. They have a highly circumstantial strike ability. That’s it.

This post makes no sense. The other weapon using classes arenot part of the “fighter core class”, they’re separate classes.

As for the rest, I’m not repeating this line of argument just because a new person shows up and missed the several pages I’ve already spent on it.

 

[Hriston]

This post makes no sense. The other weapon using classes arenot part of the “fighter core class”, they’re separate classes.

What classes are you talking about? I've been clear from the beginning of our exchange that I'm talking about a fighter class that includes paladin as a subclass. I would also include barbarian and ranger if that wasn't clear.

 

[Mecheon]

No, most classes don’t have the martial weapons, variety in choice of armor, and armed combat capabilities that define the fighter. Those that do (typically barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger) are part of the “fighter core class”. I'm not sure what you mean by other weapon-using classes, I suppose you mean thief/rogue? They don’t generally have martial weapons and have a low level of raw combat capability comparable to the magic-user in early editions. They have a highly circumstantial strike ability. That’s it.

The thing is though, they don't have those. Barbarian and ranger specifically doesn't have the armor choice thing for a quick example

Trying to sub-class them into Fighter is just either going to make Fighter absolutely watered down that it has no flavour of its own, or limit those classes due to the restrictions placed on them by being stuck on the fighter chasis. Likewise, the Fighter should have things that are unique to the Fighter itself, its not just "The class that uses a bunch of martial weapons"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing is though, they don't have those. Barbarian and ranger specifically doesn't have the armor choice thing for a quick example

Just move heavy armour proficiency out of the core class into the fighter and paladin subclasses.

The thing to do is say "what do all of these have in common?" Those are the core class abilities. Everything else is a subclass ability.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What classes are you talking about? I've been clear from the beginning of our exchange that I'm talking about a fighter class that includes paladin as a subclass. I would also include barbarian and ranger if that wasn't clear.

They’re separate, and since it apperently needs explicit saying, should remain separate.

Fighter is what should go, if reducing the number of classes.

 

[Hriston]

The thing is though, they don't have those. Barbarian and ranger specifically doesn't have the armor choice thing for a quick example

Why not? You seem to be universalizing some particular design choices made in 5E. This thread is posted in the general D&D forum.

 

[Hriston]

They’re separate, and since it apperently needs explicit saying, should remain separate.

They're not separate in every edition. This thread is posted in the general D&D forum.

Fighter is what should go, if reducing the number of classes.

Reducing from where? The OP asks what should be the core classes. There's no particular number we're starting from. Each class is additive.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why not? You seem to be universalizing some particular design choices made in 5E. This thread is posted in the general D&D forum.

Not wearing heavy armour seems to me like big part of the imagery of both the ranger and the barbarian. Hell, if was up to me I’d design those classes to function without medium armour either.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not wearing heavy armour seems to me like big part of the imagery of both the ranger and the barbarian. Hell, if was up to me I’d design those classes to function without medium armour either.

I mean, the Ranger could use heavy armor at introduction and in 1e AD&D, in 2e, it was limited to studded leather if it wanted it's special TWF benefit, but, IIRC, could still go heavy. And, it wasn't until 3.0 (or 2e C&T? IDK, I lost track of it at that point) that heavy armor definitively stopped being the best armor, and DEX became the unquestionably best stat.