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

[Bawylie]

3 bass classes that cover one or more traditional combat roles.
1 that uses tools and training (tank or dps options in the base class)
1 that receives powers from an otherworldly patron, force, etc. (healer or support options baked into the base class).
1 that manipulates the world’s elements through study and experimentation (dps and support options baked into the base class).

Subclasses would be kits geared toward non-combat play. Sort of narratively focused on the world and/or toward a specific aspect of exploration/interaction. Probably something like 2 or 3 subclasses over 20 levels. In scope I’m thinking they’re like backgrounds +1.


-Brad

Edit to add: the action “attack” will be renamed “fight.” And probably a few more revisions and renamings to encompass a broader scope of activity in any particular action.

 

[77IM]

I think I'd keep it pretty similar to how it is now, actually. I'd just clean up some of the classes that had weak subclass options, like Fighter, Ranger, and Sorcerer. Actually, any class where there aren't 3-4 obvious subclasses is probably narratively weak. And certain popular concepts have been left on the cutting room floor (witch, shaman, warlord). For example, if Fighter got more from its subclass it could cover a lot more narrative ground; I find it somewhat ironic how the designers lamented the difficulty of designing the Fighter for precisely their narrative breadth, and then made the mistake of baking all the power into the superclass. They did a better job with the Druid and could use it to represent things like the shaman (which they kind of did -- Xanathar's "Circle of the Shepherd" is somewhat like the 4e Shaman). The one that really got the shaft, I think, is Sorcerers. There are a lot of popular characters these days that would be described as Sorcerers; the fact that it's hard to build Elsa using just the PHB is a fail. (Yes, you can reflavor the silver draconic sorcerer, but no little girl wants to hear that.) There should be at least as many Sorcerous Origins as there are Arcane Traditions.

The only possible exception is I'd like to see an arcane half-caster, half-warrior as a full class. That's a popular enough thing in genre fiction to warrant its own core class. I don't think Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger are cutting the mustard. The biggest problem with the warrior-mage concept is that it's hard to come up with a good name for it other than awkward-sounding combinations like "warrior-mage." ("Adept" is not an awful name for this class, coming from a Shadowrun background, but it means nothing to people in general.) Subclasses might included spellblade, gish, something that does what a 4e swordmage did (but not called "swordmage" because it's too easily confused with spellblade), and something more roguish (maybe shadowdancer?). If this is starting to sound a little like a jack-of-all-trades with substantial overlap with Bard, I'm OK with that. I think the classes represent genre archetypes first and foremost, and in today's genre fiction, the warrior-mage is at least as popular as the bard. But the two are distinct enough that I wouldn't try to make one a subclass of the other.

 

[Horwath]

3 classes.
10 levels of spells. 10th level at 19th level.
Certain warrior/rogue subclasses would be half casters(5 levels of spells max).
All subclasses begin at 1st level with special features.


Warrior(knight, avenger, beserker, warden, beastmaster, battlemaster, champion, spirit warrior)

Rogue(assassin, thief, scout, bard, ninja, hunter,)

Mage(white mage-priest, green mage-druid, black mage-necromancer, elementalist, summoner, battle mage, blade singer).

and somewhat 2e multiclassing with dual levels every 3 levels, starting on 5th.

[table="width: 200, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr]
[td]character level[/td]
[td]class 1[/td]
[td]class 2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1[/td]
[td]1[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]1[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[td]3[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6[/td]
[td]4[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]4[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]8[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[td]5[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]9[/td]
[td]6[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]10[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]6[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]11[/td]
[td]7[/td]
[td]7[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12[/td]
[td]8[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]13[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]8[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]14[/td]
[td]9[/td]
[td]9[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]15[/td]
[td]10[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]16[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]10[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]17[/td]
[td]11[/td]
[td]11[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]18[/td]
[td]12[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]19[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]12[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]20[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[td]13[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

 

[Charlaquin]

Class would be the broadest expression of the archetype, with subclass being more specific expressions of the concept. In effect, Class becomes something akin to Power Sources or Roles in 4e, while subclasses would be closer to what we tend to think of as classes. I'd probably start with the following in the PHB, and expand from there:

Fighter
- Barbarian
- Paladin
- Ranger

Mage
- Sorcerer
- Warlock
- Wizard

Mystic
- Cleric
- Druid
- Monk

Rogue
- Assassin
- Bard
- Thief

Class would determine your resource game, and subclass would determine your specific abilities within that framework. Fighters use mostly at-will abilities - if you can use a special fighting maneuver once, you can use it again, no arbitrary restrictions on how many times you can rage. But some might have drawbacks or costs, like Barbarians becoming exhausted after raging, or Paladins having various combat stances and can only be in one stance at a time. Mages use spells that recover on a daily or long rest basis - traditional Vancian faire. Wizards have their spellbooks and spell memorization, sorcerers always have access to all their known spells and treat spell slots like a mana pool, etc. Mystics have magical abilities that recover on an encounter or short rest basis - they need only a brief opportunity to tap into their source of mystical power. Clerics prey to their deities, monks meditate and refresh the flow of Ki, etc. Rogues have highly specialized abilities, which like Fighter powers are not restricted by limited resources, but are generally situational in use. Assassins can do a ton of damage when they catch an enemy by surprise, bards can charm and beguile when they have the opportunity to perform, etc.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

One Character class - PC.
Each level, you get an increasing number of "Class Feature Points" which you spend to buy class features.
All features are available (though some cost enough points to stop you buying them until you get to a high enough level). Some features are cheaper if you buy other features first.

Totally modular design.
1st level spells - 3 pts
Sneak attack - N+1pts (1pt for 1d6, +2pts (3 total) for 2d6, +3 pts (6 total) for 3d6, and so on)
Bardic music starting package - 2 pts.
Additional uses of bardic music (more times per day) - 2 pts. for 1/day
Addition Bardic Music Options - priced individually.
9th level spells - IDK 180 pts but -10 pts for each spell level pack you have (so if you have 1-8 already it's only 100 pts)

 

[CapnZapp]

The strength of Dungeons & Dragons is how they have successfully resisted the lure to streamline and rationalize the game.

Having idiosyncratic and unique classes cluttered with uncategorizible features is wonderful.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Lanefan]

The only possible exception is I'd like to see an arcane half-caster, half-warrior as a full class. That's a popular enough thing in genre fiction to warrant its own core class. I don't think Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger are cutting the mustard. The biggest problem with the warrior-mage concept is that it's hard to come up with a good name for it other than awkward-sounding combinations like "warrior-mage." ("Adept" is not an awful name for this class, coming from a Shadowrun background, but it means nothing to people in general.) Subclasses might included spellblade, gish, something that does what a 4e swordmage did (but not called "swordmage" because it's too easily confused with spellblade), and something more roguish (maybe shadowdancer?). If this is starting to sound a little like a jack-of-all-trades with substantial overlap with Bard, I'm OK with that.

This is something I never want to see: a jack-of-all-trades class.

Why?

Because a true jack-of-all-trades doesn't need a party as he-she can do everything on his-her own.

The most compelling game-mechanical (and narrative, if the characters have half a clue) reason for an adventuring party to form, gain members, and stay together is that each character (usually) brings strengths that cover off weaknesses of the others. The characters thus come to rely on each other, and the whole becomes a bit more than the sum of the parts.

J-o-a-T characters blow this up because, if designed and-or built properly, they have no weaknesses. And that is bad. (and this is also a primary reason why I really don't care much for multi-classing)

Lanefan

 

[Tallifer]

I truly enjoyed the 4th Edition grid: Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine, Psionic paired with Striker, Defender (Tank), Support and Utility/Control. Countless classes and subclasses were never a problem for me in that system, because their function always made sense.

As for certain iconic characters or backgrounds, fluff could always be refluffed.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

I truly enjoyed the 4th Edition grid: Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine, Psionic paired with Striker, Defender (Tank), Support and Utility/Control. Countless classes and subclasses were never a problem for me in that system, because their function always made sense.

As for certain iconic characters or backgrounds, fluff could always be refluffed.

I guess I'd say, the reason I personally didn't like the Power/Role grid in 4e, was because classes were too locked in to their role.

It was slightly too much of an MMO design choice, and while I love MMOs and video games in general, one of the reasons I play Tabletop RPGs is that they are more open. I like being able to use my abilities in unexpected ways, I like being able to take a character whose class would normally fall into one role, and alter that character enough (within the written rules of the game without house rules) to fill a different niche.

You take a 3.X Fighter, people would say "Defender role".
But you give em a Pole Arm, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Whirlwind attack, other stuff, you end up with a very good Area Controller.
Build a primary caster with a focus on Summons and Buffs, suddenly the d4 hit die character is essentially the tank because their summons fill the defender role.

So, I wouldn't want a Grid like that again.


HOWEVER, (I'm gonna reference Starfinder again) What about a more aggressive version of the Theme system from Star Finder? Themes grant a stat bonus, and like 4 powers as you level up.
What if you made a system where the roles were applied like themes, granting appropriate bonuses.
Wizard with a Control/Utility theme would be essentially the same as 3.5 wizard or 5e wizard
Fighter with Defender would be essentially the same as a 3.5 Fighter or 5e Champion Fighter
Wizard with Defender would get fewer spells, but their Mage Armor spell would get progressively stronger and they'd get more HP.
Fighter with Striker would get less HP and possibly give up heavy armor, but get high burst dmg attacks.
Cleric Utility vs Cleric Defender would basically be 5e Life Cleric vs War Cleric.


Side note: Defenders should have a way to make it Desirable or Advantageous to enemies to focus on them, they should NOT have powers that say "Target may ONLY attack you for x duration".

 

[Coroc]

If 6e would need a revamp of classes i would make it more modular to be exactly as downward compatible as 5e. If you look closely 5e got it all, you do not need most multiclasses because they are depicted by a subclass (e.g. 2e, 3e Fighter /Mage or Basic D&D Elf character class = Eldritch Knight)
You cannot get more perfect than this!