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

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, my take on the OP's question:

Fighter
Priest (divine caster)
Rogue
Wizard
Shaman (see below)
Monk

"Shaman" is my catchall for a caster class that doesn't get there through study (that's Wizard) or prayer (that's Priest) but through some kind of dangerous connection to supernatural entities. So Witch, Druid, and Warlock would all fit under there. Also Witch-doctor, but I have a gut feeling that archetype is considered insensitive now, which would be too bad.

I know Monk isn't popular, but I just don't see it fitting well under Fighter or Rogue, and I love monks. So, yeah, it gets a whole class to itself.

Here's how other archetypes would manifest
Paladin: back to being a sub-class of Fighter
Ranger: not a class or subclass. If you want to play one, multiclass rogue and fighter and take feats.
Sorcerer: Wizard with different fluff
Bard: rogue subclass for the basic chassis, then multiclass and feats
Cleric: Priest/Fighter multiclass
Barbarian: Fighter subclass, plus feats.

In general I think a lot more feats could allow for the expression of more archetypes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Due to this each could only ever be played as single-class characters, so as to avoid dipping to get access to these mechanics.

That's an interesting concept.

Oh, although I like very little from 3e and 4e, I think something like prestige classes...which I think of as "templates"...would be cool. That is, classes which can only be used for multi-classing, not a base class. "Woodsman", "Barbarian", "Lycanthrope", "Holy Warrior" etc. would enable a bunch of archetypes to be layered onto various classes. Why shouldn't a Wizard be able to rage? Or a rogue to strike holy blows against undead and demons?

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, although I like very little from 3e and 4e, I think something like prestige classes...which I think of as "templates"...would be cool. That is, classes which can only be used for multi-classing, not a base class. "Woodsman", "Barbarian", "Lycanthrope", "Holy Warrior" etc. would enable a bunch of archetypes to be layered onto various classes. Why shouldn't a Wizard be able to rage? Or a rogue to strike holy blows against undead and demons?

Ma-aybe?

My first thought is this idea, while good in principle, might be an absolute minefield in practice when it comes to trying to keep it all at least vaguely in balance.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ma-aybe?

My first thought is this idea, while good in principle, might be an absolute minefield in practice when it comes to trying to keep it all at least vaguely in balance.

That's definitely true. It would be hard. Have to keep it simple (which would be facilitated by a shorter class and sub-class list) and use lots of playtesting.

 

[squibbles]

More misc. thoughts/comments:

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

One thing I noticed in fiddling with the 6-class challenge myself is that half-casters don't fit in it very well. All the existing half-caster classes have a very strong theme and half-casting is too powerful to add as a subclass level feature if the balance of the ammended classes is equivalent to current 5e. What you did there is interesting, a new class with its own relatively strong theming--stronger theming than the fighter or rogue anyway--but with even more strongly themed component subclasses. (I assume you are thinking in terms of subclasses--the mechanics these many class collapses and how they're organized mechanically is generally unstated, so I'm just thinking of how I'd do it)

[...] Fighter: Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk

Fighter is already a blank slate and Battlemaster is a great template for adding lots of abilities with resource costs. Easy to slot in the other tough classes with subclass abilities and limited spellcasting.

Monk can be fueled by Superiority Dice. [...]

So many people leaving the Rogue in. First thing I would do is merge them with the Fighter to create a proper martial hero class. One that can function in combat and out of combat.

Considering how strongly 5e leans toward classes using magic, maybe putting everything that doesn't use magic into the widely-thought-to-be-bland fighter class is a good solution to the challenge. 1/6 non-inherently-magic classes isn't a whole lot less than 4/13 non-inherently-magic classes. (yes I know neither of you suggested that, I'm just musing)

Sorcerer: Sorcerer, Bard

Sorcerer has the theme of innate casting. While Bards train to weave magic through performance that is ultimately not how they learn spells. Both use Charisma and Sorcery Points can be repurposed to be Bardic Inspiration.

If those two classes became one with a unified set of mechanics, it would say something curious about the nature of magic in the implied setting. I'm not sure exactly what, but it'd make the bard less of a one-off musician who also knows arcane magic (with explicitly called out colleges) to music being inherently sorcerous or sorcery being inherently musical.

 

[reelo]

Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief.
(Halfling gets the axe)

 

[squibbles]

[...]

"Shaman" is my catchall for a caster class that doesn't get there through study (that's Wizard) or prayer (that's Priest) but through some kind of dangerous connection to supernatural entities. So Witch, Druid, and Warlock would all fit under there. Also Witch-doctor, but I have a gut feeling that archetype is considered insensitive now, which would be too bad.

[...]

I recognize it's not the gist of your post but, incidentally, "shaman" is considered insensitive in some quarters as well--they even made it to the Wikipedia page

 

[squibbles]

Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief.
(Halfling gets the axe)

I knew it was just a matter of time until that was suggested

 

[Bill Zebub]

I recognize it's not the gist of your post but, incidentally, "shaman" is considered insensitive in some quarters as well--they even made it to the Wikipedia page

Yeah, I'm not totally happy with the name in any event. "Spiritualist" has both the wrong connotations and just sounds bland.

I mean, I guess "Witch" could be the base class. If you expand it to mean more than just Fairy Tale witches, I could see Druid* and Warlock both fitting. But that then leaves open the question of what you call the Fairy Tale subclass.

In any event, I wish the "scary caster with supernatural friends" archetype was its own thing.

Although, truly, if Templates were a thing, I could see Shapeshifting (as a different template from Lycanthropy) being one of those Templates. So the Druid is implemented by being a Nature Priest with a Shapeshifting Template. That way Barbarians (Fighter subclass) could shapeshift (Beorn?), Rangers (Fighter/Rogue multiclass) could Shapeshift, etc. All kinds of fun possibilities. And you only have to dip as far as you want. Just want to be able to turn into a cat? One level. A flying creature? Two levels. A brown bear? At least 4 levels.

 

[squibbles]

Yeah, I'm not totally happy with the name in any event. "Spiritualist" has both the wrong connotations and just sounds bland.

I mean, I guess "Witch" could be the base class. If you expand it to mean more than just Fairy Tale witches, I could see Druid* and Warlock both fitting. But that then leaves open the question of what you call the Fairy Tale subclass.

In any event, I wish the "scary caster with supernatural friends" archetype was its own thing. [...]

I know what you mean. It's hard to come up with thematic names for the broad categories that aren't already spoken for somehow.

I like diabolist as a name for "scary caster with supernatural friends." Invoker is also a perfect name for this when used in its traditional sense: Invoke—from the Latin “invocare” to call upon, i.e. call upon divine and otherworldly beings.