D&D (2024) 6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?

[Blue]

Okay ... I love 5e, so I'm going to suggest a very NOT 5e system - because if it was a 5e system Id rather just stay with / expand 5e.

But still keep it recognizable D&D. Hmm.

I'd love to see few classes/subclasses, but more mixing and matching between them without removing primary focus - a bit like subclasses do now where they add a theme to an existing class, vs. multiclassing that stop advancement in one class to add from another class.

Making this up as I go along, say you had Casters, Tanks, Skill-monkeys (includes Faces), Snipers, Skirmishers and Pet Owners. Snipers is the horrible name I just came up with for ranged combatants - both a classic archer and a EB warlock would fit in it. Skirmishers are great at moving, and likely have some sort of attack that goes with it, like sneak attack. Pet Owners are beastmasters, necromancers, summoning casters, and their friends based on what you flavor it with.

(Side note written when I got to the end: I've fallen into a trap. D&D classes for the last few editions are so focused mechanically around "everyone is good at combat" that my classes all focused on that to varying degrees, with Skirmisher and Sniper as least descriptive.)

Casters will need to be divvied up more, haven't thought about how. Perhaps by what you flavor them with. So a Tank / Caster would have protection and melee boosting spells, maybe some touch based ones.

A classic Wizard would be a Caster with some Skill-Monkey. A traditional D&D cleric would be Caster with Tank bits for the weapons and armor. Rogues could be Skill Monkey with Skirmisher or vice Versa. Bards would be Skill-monkey Casters. Rangers type archers are skill-monkey snipers. Etc. But you could have other combos. Want a Tank/Skill-monkey? Skirmisher Caster?

So each class is both a framework, and the same primary features but probably with slower acquisition and less secondary features as a subclass. So a caster is low HPs, no armor, simple weapons, full casting, and nifty casting boost features. Adding fighter as a subclass to it will add some HPs and weapon/armor, and some of the main fighter boosts.

Now, before I started writing I was thinking the Paladin was Fighter with a Cleric subclass, but then I lose Cleric as a main class because really not all divine casters need to be heavily armored and proficient with a mace. (I'm old-school.) So maybe what we need is some additional sub-classes that anyone can take. Or better yet (see, I'm coming up with this as I write it), an additional axis of flavoring and thematic components that everyone takes, much like the Warlock chooses a patron.

So "Divine" would be one of those. Or maybe various domains? That might be too granular, but on the other hand it might work well for your Pet Owner / Skirmisher of the Goddess of Hunting.

Eh, I've tossed a bunch of half-formed thoughts at the wall, let's see what's worth discussing.

 

[TwoSix]

What makes the druid different?

I'm strongly influenced by 4e cosmology, so I see druidic magic being distinct from both divine and arcane. Druidic magic also has fairly limited overlap with both in terms of spell effects. Making it a strong base archetype would allow for further differentiation.

So combining sub-class and feats?

Essentially. Ideally, a compromise between 5e's fairly closed system and 4e and PF's fungibility.

 

[mellored]

I should put up my own idea. Not sure if this would work out well, but...
Fully embrace muli-classing.

*All classes are short. Only as many levels as they need to be.
**Clerics/Wizards have 9 levels, one for each spell level.
**Barbarian might be 3 levels.
**Jester might only be 1 level.
**Fighters can be taken as many times as you want. Though each time only adds damage and HP.

*A few "core" classes (fighter, thief, cleric, wizard) are open to anyone. The rest have minor story prerequisites.
**Warlocks need to make an actual deal, and need to serve to gain more warlock levels.
**Pirates need a ship.
**Stuff like dragonmarks and neverwinter guard too.
(You can get some prerequisites via backgrounds).

*Can't take the same class 2 times in a row. Though you could go cleric/fighter/cleric/fighter.

*Damage/Defense is mostly by character level (like 5e cantrips). Classes mostly provide versatility. So wizard 1/shopkeeper 3/pirate 3/noble 2/trickster 2/sage 5/ninja 3, can still cast a decent magic missile.
**A straight fighter will still do the most damage.

*No level cap. Just keep on adding new classes until you get bored. Though damage scale slows down.


Edit: And yes, this is like a combination between sub-classes and feats.

 

[Slit518]

If you want an idea of what I think 6th edition would look like, it would probably look something similar to this:

https://sites.google.com/site/labandlich/

Now note, I wrote this website in 2011 modifying D&D 3.5 a bit, and I have a version on a PC that I wrote in 2012 that is like a "new edition." It had sub-races added to base races and everything, kind of like what 5th edition does now.

For character building I would suggest looking at the Races and Classes links.

 

[mellored]

I would make 3 stats strictly offensive stats and 3 stats strictly defensive, and every class would focus on one offensive stat and one defensive stat (although there are benefits for upping the other defensive stats):

I kind of like mind/body/spirit.

 

[Slit518]

I kind of like mind/body/spirit.

I think Jade Empire had a system that revolved around this.

 

[Monayuris]

The core four: fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric.

I’d take 5e’s lead on feats with how they are packages, but I’d take it one step further and make them even more encompassing packages, and packages that have some sort of level scaling.

For example, let’s say you want an Eldritch Knight. You choose a fighter, and at level 3 (the level normally where a subclass is granted), you choose a feat package of Arcane Magic. That feat starts by granting a couple cantrips and a first level spell. At every level gained, you gain an additional spell slot. At 5th level, you get a 2nd level spell. At 7th level you get third level, etc.

Or you choose the knight feat package and get bonuses to mounted combat, abilities tied around leadership and inspiration, and abilities to help defend allies. All of which also have level scaling abilities.

Note, that is just for illustrative purpose, not that that’s how I’d actually do it. With more encompassing feat packages, there would be fewer of them, and in return you’d have more baked in core class features and no subclasses.

*edit. I’d also have prerequisites for the feat packages. For example, in order to have the knight package, you’d have to be either a fighter or cleric class. Or to choose arcane magic, you’d need at least a 14 INT.

I actually like this.

I'd like to see a Ranger sub-class as just a package of abilities that 'plugs into' the fighter class. Same with Barbarian or Paladin. Wizards can encompass sorcerers, warlocks, artificers... clerics: Druids, Witches... Rogue: Thief, Acrobat, Assassin, etc...

The base class can manage most of the 'raw' power and the package would just provide thematic tweaks that should hit each of the three pillars.

This could be expanded to an 'NPC package' option that provides a streamlined and simplified way of making NPCs that sit within the same Class framework that would be easy for a DM to use. For example, a Berserker will just be a Fighter with an 'NPC' Berserker package (with maybe a simple rage mechanic) or a NPC Spellcaster would be a Wizard with an 'NPC' Cult Leader package (which would include a list of prepared spells already defined).

You wouldn't need stat-blocks for every type of NPC.. Making NPC's would be simple, since you just need to choose their class and level and then create or pick a 'package'. The core classes will have the definitive abilities of the class already defined, the packages just offer the unique elements of the NPC.

 

[steeldragons]

I hear the moans and groans now..."You posted a thread about class structure with Steeldragons in earshot?! Are you MAD, man!?"

I'd probably go something like the following, as I used for my own homebrew system...

Base Class: Broadest theme/archetype of a certain fantasy trope, focus on the specific features/mechanics upon which the class relies. A character's specific flavor is left, nearly entirely, to the player or other elements of character creation (such as themes/backgrounds, accumulated skills, feats, etc...)
--Less Broad Thematic subclass with slight mechanic difference, e.g.: a subclass that relies on a specialty of a certain feature/facet of the base class.
--More narrow thematic subclass with heavier mechanic differences.
--Most narrow thematic subclass, probably including some alignment or other restriction, with the heaviest mechanic differences from the base, including the use of magic and/or other specific feature from a different base class.

For example:
Fighter: broadest possible "warrior" archetype.
--Knight - a specific flavor/theme of warrior, honing in on the character's expertise and background flavor.
--Barbarian - a specific flavor/theme of warrior, including assumptions of culture [if not race], hones in on a particular fighting style with a unique mechanic ("Battle Raging/Berserking") other warriors don't have access to.
--Martial Adept - a very specific "martial arts" disciple kind of warrior, particular martial arts "style" allows for above/beyond attack damage and effects and supernatural abilities particular to the Adept, heavily oriented toward Dexterity features -likely taken from the Thief/Rogue class, the discipline and honor required of the flavor/theme of the archetype requires a dedication to a Lawful alignment.

OR...there's always this...

 

[Blue]

I would make 3 stats strictly offensive stats and 3 stats strictly defensive, and every class would focus on one offensive stat and one defensive stat (although there are benefits for upping the other defensive stats), so something like:

fighter: str/con (some sort of benefit for the longer fights go)
mystic/psychic: int/con (most abilities come from astral projection, where the more con you have, the longer you can project)
channeler: cha/con (channeler of primal spirits=druid)
combat artiste (I am still working on a name): str/dex (includes martial artists and barbarians, I am picturing the martial version of the 5e warlock with "styles" instead of invocations)
assassin: int/dex (studies enemy and uses int for damage, includes hunter rangers and rogues)
psychological warfare (still working on a name): cha/dex (magic subclass is bard, nonmagic subclass is warlord)
champion: str/wis (sees the world as it is and gets boons, based on "champion of what": champion of celestials=paladin, champion of fiends=hellblade, champion of fey=feyblade, champion of primal spirits=totem barbarian, etc.)
wizard: int/wis (all buffs will be based on wisdom)
summoner: cha/wis (most spells will be bonus action spells, so the summoner uses a bonus action to power up the pet, and the summoner's action to make the pet attack; ditto buffs are wisdom)

Of course all that might change by tomorrow, but this is what amuses me now.

Just to take this further, why have multiple offensive stats that do the same thing? If you are going to advance one offensive stats, the other offensive stats seem to be potential dump stats.

Perhaps two - one for accuracy and one for force. Give each character a proficient use of them (casting, weapons, maybe break up further) and it's the same set of ability scores no matter what.

 

[Blue]

Ooh, got a different one to suggest.

Characters have three totally separate classes, each with their own XP and level. These three correspond to the different pillars of D&D.

So you would have a "combat" class, a "exploration" (or "discovery" as Mike Mearls says he now likes to call it) class and a "social interaction" class. They each have their own feats that you can only take with levels from those classes. All classes have choice of two primary ability scores, to allow better overlap between your classes. (Ability score balancing would need to occur.) So yes, this means that if you picked DEX for your fighter, you could use DEX for all weapons you are proficient with, not just finesse weapons.

Social Interaction classes would be thinks like Face, Thug, Spy, Grifter, Performer, Leader, Enchanter.

Discovery classes would be something like Wilderness Guide, Seer, Sneak, Shapechanger, Fortuneteller and Sage.

Combat classes would be greatly stripped down from what we have, but since 80%+ of class rules are combat related it gives you an idea.

To give an example of how existing class would get split up, Druidic base wild shape would go to a Discovery class. Moon Druid wild shape would likely be a whole combat class.

XP would be given out per scene/montage, and would be individualized. Additional XP would be given out for milestones/story awards and you can divide that as you like between all three. Or it adds to all three automatically, that might be better.

As a matter of fact, I'd strongly suggest that PCs don't start the same in all three of their pillars - some could be stronger in Social Interaction, or Combat, or Discovery. The XP charts make it easy to catch up to the same level as everyone else.

Inspiration for this was a recent article had me thinking about Mechwarrior, the Battletech RPG I played back in the 90s. All of your "pilot a mech" skills came from the same bucket as everything else. Two of us made well rounded characters who would be able to survive outside a mech, but weren't experts at anything. I was actually bad in the mech battle part since I had okay skills but owned a tiny 20 tonner. Others barely made any allowance for life outside of a mech and were really good at that. And I wished that you didn't have to give up one to get the other.