D&D 5E 5E Core Classes - According to Enworld

[Incenjucar]

The core four of classic D&D is fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. But "core" is kind of a loaded term in D&D. Core means a number of things to different people. To some, core means things like "appears in the first PHB." Others "will be supported by WotC after initial publication." And some "must be allowed at all times or my DM is a jerk." The first one isn't a big deal. The second one is a huge deal. The third one is a huge deal in those (hopefully) minority games where people act like that and don't get instantly booted out the door for being absurd.

 

[gyor]

Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue
These are the no brainer, must have classes. If you are doing DnD, these four have got to be in place.

The interesting thing is that most of the other classes can be covered by just these four archtypes. About the only ones that can't do this deal with Psionic Classes (as it's a completely different power source) and Vampire (which is a monster, not a class)

Paladin - Cleric / Fighter
Druid - Nature diety Cleric
Ranger - Fighter / Rogue with nature Role Playing elements
Bard - Rogue / Wizard with performances (Rock On)
Barbarian - Fighter with RP elements
Monk - Fighter / Rogue with RP elements
Assassin - Rogue with RP elements
Swordmage - Fighter / Wizard
etc.

Assassin was more then a rogue with rp elements in 4e, he was the premier class that used shadow powers.

Druid also used the primal power source, not divine in 4e. I like the primal power source and I expect 5e will have it too.

I'd like at least one class for every power source, and more for basic sources like divine and arcane.

 

[jbear]

I'm totally fine with the 'core' being kept very simple. Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric would be fine, for example.

From there I would like to see the other classes added as options.

But what I would really like to see is an option for flexible PC building where you don't have to define your charcter by class at all, you can just define him as your charater who does this this and this.

I think themes have shown that there can be elements added to a PC which widens the scope of 'I am a human fighter'.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Sorry, but I am a sucker for classes. The more the better.

I like classes being distinct from the start. I wouldn't want a player have to use all their choices to play a monk using options available to fighters for eg. If options are limited, then all monks turn out the same and probably suffer vs a fighter.

I just love classes, though I am all for Talent Trees. There is more than enough flavour for a Barbarian to have its own Talent Trees (not be one of a fighter's or ranger's). HOWEVER, I do believe such classes could share Talent Trees. I would rather the TT's be the core ideas for customising a very simply base for many classes.

Maybe it is just me, but races and classes are always the first thing I read in any new supplement/system.