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

[delericho]

If we're going for six classes specifically, I'd go one of two ways - either have one class tied to each of the six ability scores, or have one class tied to each "power source" (as in 4e - so there would be a Martial character, Primal, Arcane, Divine, Artifice, and Psionic).

That said, I wouldn't go down that route. These days I quite like the set of classes we have (with a small number of additions), and so if going for six for the PHB, I'd pick a handy subset (Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and probably Druid) and then add the rest in an early supplement. Or, better still, put those in the Starter Set, and the full set in the PHB.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I'm going to turn this whole thing on its head. Why do we need classes in the first place?
...
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.

You know, I would say that's what feats and sub-classes are for. If you are a non-spell caster, here's a sub-class that lets you be a half-caster. If you are a spell caster that wants to wield a sword like Gandalf, here's a feat for you. Also, I think there should be fewer classes, and that some divisions come close to hair splitting.

I would really prefer seven classes over six, but that's most probably my B/X bias showing. That gave us Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief, Tough Fighter, Fighter/Magic-User, Rural Thief. For just six classes, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, Ftr/Wiz, Ranger would be a good starting six, and I can see where I would place the remaining classes as sub classes for those.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

• A strength-based class, who uses heavy armour and toughness to resist being damaged.
• A dexterity-based class, who uses agility and mobility to resist being hit.
• An intelligence-based class, who uses book learning and study to know a wide range of abilities, but who can only fit a small amount of it in memory at one time (like the 5E wizard). Uses prepared casting and spell slot mechanism.
• An innate-talent based class (not tied to one particular ability score), who has a narrow range of magic and who can use any of it at any time (like the 5E bard and sorcerer). Uses a spell point mechanism.
• A charisma-based class, who uses animals or undead or something to do their fighting for them.

No "DPS" roles. All classes can do all parts of the MMOG trinity.

Class does not imply "magic". The summoner could be using dark magic to raise undead (like the 5E necromancer wizard), or their personality to control animals (like the 5E beastmaster ranger), or their piety to call upon the servants of their god. As far as the class mechanics are concerned, it doesn't matter.

 

[le Redoutable]

idea here :

1° you have 4 Basic Classes
2° then you double class two from the four;

Cleric
Fighter
M-U
Thief

===>

Cleric/Fighter
Cleric/Wizard
Cleric/Thief
Fighter/Wizard
Fighter/Thief
Wizard/Thief

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Strong hero
Fast Hero
Hearty Hero
Intelligent Hero
Wise Hero
Charismatic Hero

If we do this we can then also have subclasses (strong/fast/hearty can be fighter or rouge or ranger sub class)

 

[CreamCloud0]

Cleric/Fighter

Paladin

Cleric/Wizard

Druid, or a 'Sage' class, Mystic Theurge??? Was a divine/arcane caster from previous editions too right?

Cleric/Thief
Fighter/Thief

Both of these feel as if they could be different flavours of Ranger, but Bard fits Cleric/Thief more IMO so Fighter/Thief can be the spell-less Ranger

Fighter/Wizard

Eldrich Knight, revised as a full class, or Swordmage

Wizard/Thief

Spellthief, or whatever the magic rogue subclass is called as a full class, or a Shadow Mage

 

[le Redoutable]

Paladin

Druid, or a 'Sage' class, Mystic Theurge??? Was a divine/arcane caster from previous editions too right?

Both of these feel as if they could be different flavours of Ranger, but Bard fits Cleric/Thief more IMO so Fighter/Thief can be the spell-less Ranger

Eldrich Knight, revised as a full class, or Swordmage

Spellthief, or whatever the magic rogue subclass is called as a full class, or a Shadow Mage

nono, a Fighter/Cleric is much tougher than a Paladin;
( etc )

 

[CreamCloud0]

if i might tangent this thread a tiny bit to a similar topic, if doing the same thing with species what would you pick as the '6 species'? i think i'd have:
Humans-versatile, offers lots of customisable skills and proficiencies, advantages to charisma/social interactions building off their description in the PHB as 'everybody's second best friend.'
Smallfolk-halflings and dwarves, gnomes and goblins ect..., as the single 'small' species allows the to go into more depth of the mechanics of being a small species giving them unique pros and cons than the other species.
Giantfolk-goliaths and giants, ect..., as the single 'large' species allows them to go into more depth of the mechanics of being a large species giving them unique pros and cons than the other species.
Planetouched-elves and tieflings, assimaar and elementals ect..., the 'magic' race, limited degrees of inherent spellcasting or more 'supernatural' capabilities.
Beastfolk-dragonborn and orcs, minotaur, lizardfolk and tabaxi[?] ect..., customisable with a point-buy style list of various generic beastial traits like fins and gills for swimming and waterbreathing, wings for gliding, claws for digging, extra or enhanced senses, natural weapons like teeth, horns, claws, breath weapon or natural poisons/paralytics/ect...,
Constructs-Warforged and other similar material golem types[?], plantfolk ect..., they're tough and sturdy, resistances to damage or certain types of status conditions, bonuses to health, they don't have standard biological needs like sleep.

 

[Blue Orange]

Tolkien has humans, dwarves, elves, halfling, Ents...you can add orcs if you like.

From Treebeard, the Ent:
Learn now the lore of Living Creatures!
First name the four, the free peoples:
Eldest of all, the elf-children;
Dwarf the delver, dark are his houses;
Ent the earthborn, old as mountains;
Man the mortal, master of horses:

Pippin adds:
Half-grown hobbits, the hole-dwellers

 

[EzekielRaiden]

if i might tangent this thread a tiny bit to a similar topic, if doing the same thing with species what would you pick as the '6 species'? i think i'd have:
Humans-versatile, offers lots of customisable skills and proficiencies, advantages to charisma/social interactions building off their description in the PHB as 'everybody's second best friend.'
Smallfolk-halflings and dwarves, gnomes and goblins ect..., as the single 'small' species allows the to go into more depth of the mechanics of being a small species giving them unique pros and cons than the other species.
Giantfolk-goliaths and giants, ect..., as the single 'large' species allows them to go into more depth of the mechanics of being a large species giving them unique pros and cons than the other species.
Planetouched-elves and tieflings, assimaar and elementals ect..., the 'magic' race, limited degrees of inherent spellcasting or more 'supernatural' capabilities.
Beastfolk-dragonborn and orcs, minotaur, lizardfolk and tabaxi[?] ect..., customisable with a point-buy style list of various generic beastial traits like fins and gills for swimming and waterbreathing, wings for gliding, claws for digging, extra or enhanced senses, natural weapons like teeth, horns, claws, breath weapon or natural poisons/paralytics/ect...,
Constructs-Warforged and other similar material golem types[?], plantfolk ect..., they're tough and sturdy, resistances to damage or certain types of status conditions, bonuses to health, they don't have standard biological needs like sleep.

Interesting choices. I personally prefer to go for less "grab bag" and more "do one thing and do it well" options, so probably...

Humans: Bog standard, they have to be there. (Though I'd prefer it if games were less painfully fawning about how special we are...)
Elves: Gotta bend to the will of the crowd on this one. They're just too popular, and have been for ages.
Dragonborn: Because I think they're awesome. 'Nuff said.
Orcs: Sort of a counterbalance to Elves, while being more down-to-earth than Dragonborn.
Dwarves: But with a twist--gnomes and halflings are also dwarves, just different cultures.
Hybrids: The only grab-bag, and for a reason, they blend two other options together (and allow for being partly some non-option, e.g. tieflings, aasimar, genasi, etc.) Any two of the above can be half of your parentage, so you can be a tiefling with a dragonborn parent, a dworc, etc.

This presents an interesting possibility of having different races as opposed poles to one another. E.g. perhaps dragonborn and orc have some kind of special opposition to each other for some reason (maybe orcs have giantish ancestry here?) Elves and dwarves are a classic opposition. And then we could have humans opposite the (non-playable) "weird" planar creatures, simultaneously driven from and driven toward these alien beings (hence all the Hybrids), and Hybrids sit in the middle. Maybe dragons are Astral-coded and orcs are Elemental-coded (like giants?), and perhaps we can associate the Shadowfell not just with death and darkness, but also industry and ennui, while the Feywild becomes a place of energy unto mania and excess unto extravagance, when either one is allowed to ride roughshod anyway.

That gives a pretty solid cosmological form. Dragons from the plane of laws and thoughts (but drawn to material wealth and energies), vs giants from the plane of forces (but drawn toward concepts and hierarchy). The grinding, entropic clockwork of existence and death (but encouraging industry and motivation), vs the lackadaisical, slothful excess of extravagance and hedonism (but encouraging creativity and excellence). The grounded, here-and-now attitude of the mortal world (but the yearning for adventure and fantasy), vs the otherworldly, alien goals and interests of the distant planes (but the yearning for participation in something concrete).

Less "law vs chaos" or "good vs evil" and more Daoist "forces that create their own opposition," forces that can never truly be separated and which instead achieve something greater when one strikes the correct balance between them for each individual situation.