D&D 5E Challenge: Invent a PHB Class List with 6 Classes

[EzekielRaiden]

Don't forget plant people. Would Thri-Kreen fit into Beastfolks? Otherwise you need an Insect classification.



WotC is also highly interested in races they can trademark. It's part of the reason why Dragonborns and Tieflings got such a push in 4e. Anybody can put Human/Elves/Half-elves/Dwarf/Orc/Goblin in their game, only WotC gets Dragonborn, Tieflings, Aarackroka, Eladrin, etc. Having unique races is important to The Brand. It's also the kind of content that's relatively easy to pump out so that helps.

I mean, I guess you can take that rather cynical angle. I prefer to take their word at face value, that they are moving away from the "subrace" presentation because it has Unfortunate Implications they would rather avoid.

 

[Undrave]

I mean, I guess you can take that rather cynical angle. I prefer to take their word at face value, that they are moving away from the "subrace" presentation because it has Unfortunate Implications they would rather avoid.

Oh that part I believe yeah. I meant in regards to the 'bloat' of races in general.

 

[Steampunkette]

Easy.

Warrior, the fighter. Covering all weapon focused themes: Weapon master, Guardian, Berserker, Cavalier, Hunter)

Warden, the protector. Half-spellcaster dedicated to protect something: Knowledge ala Bard, Freedom ala Ranger, Goodness ala Paladin, Oppressive rulership ala Blackguard etc

Warlock, the delver. Those seeking lost knowledge, walking the thin line between curiosity and madness: wizards, witches and warlock.

Seeker, the rogue. Scholars and thrillseekers, treasure hunters, beast masters and generic travelling adventurers.

Priest, the fated. Pick a domain (nature, healing, magic, war) and the way you defend you faith (war priest, monk faith healer, oracle, tongue of fire & hexes etc)

Scion, the heir. Those born with an inner reserve of power. Psions and sorcerers.

^That, more or less.

I'd probably expand the Warden to include Artificers as a half-caster Technomage-Warrior concept. Also give Seekers an Artificer variant.

Maybe rename "Warlock" to "Arcanist", instead. Just to better allow for other kinds of spellcasters. Add the Warlord as a chunk of Warrior, as well. Or make them Wardens with a unique "Spell List" that is all Battle Shouts, Commands, and the like.

Warden would also get Gish. Like straight up arcane-fighters rather than paladin/ranger/bard. Actually in hindsight Bard would be a Seeker subclass that gets spells, just not a lot of 'em.

But overall, Vince has what I think are the best six.

 

[MoonSong]

Ok, a page out of my heartbreaker. Not literally, but an adaptation that kinda fits.

First, an explanation of how this works. You get a class, a subclass, and a theme. Class is who you are and what kind of things you can do, subclass is chosen at first and dictates how you do things and what role you assume in the party. Your theme is that, your theme or motif. For example draconic, shadow, nature, etc. But you can also have an archetypical theme that reinforces your class in order to remain "neutral" or to add a splice of a class to another class. Themes give access to special themed spells and feats. You can also multiclass, but you only get one theme.

So, without further ado, the six classes are:

• Mighty Hero. Strong, big weapons, high AC.
• Guile Hero. Cunning, agile, light weapons, medium AC.
• Inspiring Hero. Inspiring, buffs, and supports. It can even afford to be "lazy".
• Initiated Hero. Gishy, combines some weapon training with supernatural perks and keeping a tradition.
• Gifted Hero. Unarmored, wielder of supernatural power.
• Chosen Hero. Medium to high armor, specific weapons, channels magical power from a supernatural entity.

This allows to get basically any current class concept using the different classes and subclasses, and even some that don't.

 

[jmartkdr2]

It the pet attacks in melee, I would throw it in with that. If ranged, with ranged. If the pet provide utility, maybe an option for that. If the pet is sneaky... why not? sneaky works, too.

Because if the pet attacks in melee and the character attacks at range, which class would they be?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Because if the pet attacks in melee and the character attacks at range, which class would they be?

Multiclassed.

 

[Lanefan]

Because if the pet attacks in melee and the character attacks at range, which class would they be?

I think that might hinge on whether the ranged character is attacking the pet or the pet's opponent.

Oh, wait, that's alignment not class....what am I thinking?

 

[Stormonu]

I'm going to turn this whole thing on its head. Why do we need classes in the first place? They just become a "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ___".

Most modern games will have prebuilt stereotypes to help starting players. You get a package deal of abilities that represents a common trope of the genre - The Mercenary Warrior, The Recalcitrant Necromancer, The Rogue With a Heart of Gold, The Jock, The Nerd, etc. Beyond that package, or if you aren't inspired by those prebuilt characters, you can usually build your own.

Then beyond that, everything is open, it just becomes a question of what are you willing to give up in one area to advance in another?

Granted, I wouldn't play D&D without classes, but it's all a shell game of "you can do this, this and this - but you aren't allowed to touch this." And then that's why we end up with multiclassing, because someone doesn't agree with how someone else has split up the cake or has ignored this or that trope that's important to someone else.

 

[le Redoutable]

yes, it's all a Package Deal issue;
so would you manage a toolkit to build ( in an Underground way ) Classes using bargains or the like ( etc ) ?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm going to turn this whole thing on its head. Why do we need classes in the first place? They just become a "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ___".

Most modern games will have prebuilt stereotypes to help starting players. You get a package deal of abilities that represents a common trope of the genre - The Mercenary Warrior, The Recalcitrant Necromancer, The Rogue With a Heart of Gold, The Jock, The Nerd, etc. Beyond that package, or if you aren't inspired by those prebuilt characters, you can usually build your own.

Then beyond that, everything is open, it just becomes a question of what are you willing to give up in one area to advance in another?

Granted, I wouldn't play D&D without classes, but it's all a shell game of "you can do this, this and this - but you aren't allowed to touch this." And then that's why we end up with multiclassing, because someone doesn't agree with how someone else has split up the cake or has ignored this or that trope that's important to someone else.

Classes, if done well, don't just streamline the character creation process, they also streamline the character advancement process. Going classless is adding a lot more complexity for not a lot more versatility.

And even if you give pre-mades - a lot of players won't be satisfied just using the suggestion without considering all the available options. All of them. With a classless system, that means reading and trying to consider every option available.

Multiclassing just looks/feels different than classless-with-premades. It feels more optional and it's easier to see the classes as being complete with multiclassing for special cases.

Now, that doesn't mean we need classes - it's just a game, we don't need anything - but making the game classless makes it less accessible.