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

[delericho]

If you had full creative control, how would you sort them?

I would include all the classes that appear in a PHB(1) for any edition as classes - so all the 5e classes plus the Warlord (yes, I know...), the Assassin, and some sort of Mageblade class (for the BECMI Elf).

I'd leave the subclasses more or less as-is, except where the above classes make them redundant, though I'd probably take a good hard look at whether we really need 8 Wizard subclasses in the PHB, or whether we can free up some of that space to give more options to other classes.

And, to be completely honest, I think I'd scrap multiclassing.

(Oh, and also: I would curtail the level range in the core rulebooks, certainly to level 15 and would strongly consider level 10. Better to cover a smaller set of levels really well than to try to cover too much and fail to support the top levels properly. IMO, of course. )

 

[TwoSix]

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!

It's weird, but I tend to look at it from the totally opposite direction. 5e/3e style multiclassing is actually a pretty great system, why take up design space making subclasses that do a subpar job emulating it when you could make subclasses that synergize with it? Why not an EK subclass that scales based on the number of wizard levels you have?

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] well do a wizard then and give him armor and weapon skills like desired via feats. where is the Problem? He will be as powerful as a Standard wizard maybe a Little less, but with added versatility in martial Terms. You can be as creative in 5e as in 3e. But 5 e is easier to do at the table whereas 3e is better suited to a Computer game. I would have loved though, if they had stayed with the 3 e saving throw System (only 3)

 

[TwoSix]

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] well do a wizard then and give him armor and weapon skills like desired via feats. where is the Problem? He will be as powerful as a Standard wizard maybe a Little less, but with added versatility in martial Terms. You can be as creative in 5e as in 3e. But 5 e is easier to do at the table whereas 3e is better suited to a Computer game. I would have loved though, if they had stayed with the 3 e saving throw System (only 3)

It isn't a problem; the thread topic is simply how could class and subclass utility be improved in a hypothetical 6e. I simply think putting multiclassing into the base system would be superior to the current method for my desires (which are to see more customization options enabled on a per-level basis).

 

[Blue]

To riff off my own idea, a bolt-on rough way to do this in 5e that probably wouldn't actually work in practice, but gives the idea:

In 5e, take Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue as your only classes.

Add in subclasses for Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, Bard, etc. off of those classes.

Apply "gestalt style" multiclassing rules, but changed where you get one class at full every level and another class that advances only at half levels and without a subclass. Keep casting (known and slots) separate.

Throw bigger challenges without upping XP to even out everyone being tougher.

 

[g4m3kn1ght]

The current system is mostly okay, the biggest problem being that two players playing the same class don't always feel unique. There should be some kind of paragon path/prestige class options for the upper level characters (10+). I would remove the bard in favor a more obvious swordmage, and make bardic inspiration and its other mechanics a subclass option for another class or feat/background. Would standardize levels the classes receive features to make homebrewing and multiclassing a little easier. Race and background could have some specific feats or features you gain as you level to allow for more uniquely built character (i.e. a fighter that is dwarven smith versus a fighter that is a elven minstrel would have some mechanical uniqueness between eachother). Also, incorporate something like the down time activity system from Adventures in Middle Earth from Cubicle 7. Basically. you can take feats that you can choose to grow between adventures.

Finally, I would allow caster class to have an extra option for what their caster stat is (i.e. Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks can use INT or CHA, Rangers and Druids WIS or INT, Clerics and Paladins use WIS or CHA).

 

[Blue]

Okay, how's this for sticking closer to 5e then some of my other ideas:

Keep standard class/level type of setup. However, classes don't have to be 20 levels.

Starting characters are 3rd level or 5th or whatever I say below needs to work. (Side benefit - do way with fractional CR.)

Races get converted to (short) classes. It is required to have at least one level of a race at start, but you can advance more, including at later points. This allows things like giants and other "+ECL" races (to use 3.x terminology) - races that are more powerful then the "base" races. A 1st level giant might be a teen, and still medium sized. Etc.

Possibly put a "minimum level investment" for some races. A minitaur might require at least 3 levels to be a base minotaur, a storm giant might require more (and so is only available when starting at a higher level). Maybe most races expect 2 (and have teen/child 1), while a weak race like kobold or goblin would have a minimum of 1.

Number of levels for racial classes varies based on their upside - what does a paragon member of your race without class look like? Goblin might be a 3 level racial class while most only have 1 level, a fire giant might be a 12 level class with a minimum that's not lagging too far. Dragon would be a 20 level class since they have lots of room to grow.

Will have to add some ability to add to casting classes (as opposed to just casting) so as not to kill casters who would fall too far behind in max spell level known. For example High Elf might be a casting class, with it's own short spell list but it explicitly counts as Wizard levels for spells known if you are mixing.

Potentially also add in background classes. So if starting is 5th level, level 5 would be a real adventuring class, but the first few levels would be racial and background classes. Not sure if I like any of that.

 

[dave2008]

A lot of good ideas, but I think you could implement these changes without a 6e. I could see simplified (4 core) classes with revised feats implemented in a 5e setting.

 

[77IM]

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

I get what you are saying because I used to feel the same way. But evidence points to this stance being wrong.

• The most compelling game-mechanical and narrative reason to form an adventuring party is strength in numbers.
• Genre fiction is full of parties in which one or more members are jacks-of-all-trades, yet they still belong to an adventuring party.
• D&D already has several classes which are easy to build into jacks-of-all-trades, and the system doesn't collapse into one-person adventuring parties.
• I've played other RPGs where all characters are expected to be equally capable in every situation (such as many superhero RPGs and many narrative RPGs) and a party still forms.
• A properly-designed and properly-built jack-of-all-trades class does have a weakness: they are a master of none.

I think the real problem is niche erosion, as alluded to in my last bullet point. A jack-of-all trades shouldn't be quite as damaging as a fighter, or as skilly as a rouge, or as blasty as a wizard, etc. That's a tricky thing but I think it can be managed in 5e, especially since so many niches have been eroded down to nubs already. The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock can all function very well as jacks-of-all-trades, so adding an arcane half-caster (same basic design as the Paladin and Ranger) should be fine.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would not change a gosh-darned thing. Because anything you want you can already do. It just doesn't get to appear in a book that everybody else uses.

You don't like paladins? Great. The Basic Rules already exist to give you a Fighter with an Acolyte background. You don't like druids that have shapeshifting? Great. The PHB already has the Nature domain Cleric with an Outlander background. You think monks should be a sub-class of the rogue? Great. Choose three or four of the monk's main abilities and put them into the leveled features of your own monk subclass of the rogue that you make. You don't like classes at all? Great. Go buy GURPS.