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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Oh, I kind of like Invoker. (Ties in well with the Invocations mechanic, doesn't it?)

Invoker: current warlock chassis including invocations
Witch subclass: get some cool Witchy features like brewing, charms, a familiar, and a rockin' cackle
Warlock subclass: get goodies from your patron,
Two other subclasses could be based on animal/nature spirits, and spirits of dead people.
All subclasses get extra invocations to choose from

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also, Psion could be a Template.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, I am opposed to class reductionism solely for its own sake, so before I give any other answers, I wish to register my grievances with the fundamental concept. "Less is more" is only valid when you actually DO MORE with less.

But, because I don't just want to threadcrap and have actually been thinking on it, sure, let's do this thing--and because I can use a thing I've thought on before.

See, I like the idea of the MTG color wheel. It's interesting, and can be exploited for both thematic and mechanical structure. I'm a sucker for places where rich thematic structure is, at the very same time, rigorous mechanical structure. And it turns out, we have a rather handy tool for differentiating stuff; 4e called it "power source."

My "six" (really, "five plus one") options would thus be
Martial
Divine
Primal
Arcane
Shadow
+
Psionic

Or, if you prefer "class"-style names rather than "source"-style names (not my preference, but there's no real difference in this context), that would be Warrior, Cleric, Shaman, Mage, Shadow,* and Mystic. Each of these then can specialize in offense, defense, control, or support; so a support-focused Cleric is a Priest, a support-focused Mage is a Bard, a support-focused Warrior is a Warlord (or whatever term you prefer). The Psionic source/Mystic class stands out from the others because it has no specialization--its special feature is that it picks and chooses from the whole scope of Psionic options, in a "the Green Lantern Ring is the most powerful weapon in the universe" kind of way. This would be balanced by (a) giving the Mystic very minimal baseline class features, so they have to leverage the synergy of their abilities to "keep up with the Joneses," and (b) including some kind of resource mechanic and/or reduced amount of abilities, to ensure that the greater freedom does not directly translate to immediately greater power.

The aforementioned specializations are something you choose early on, giving you a clear and defined facility with that aspect of play. All characters have the potential to grow into/"officially" acquire other specialties, or blend the benefits of two specialties in a way that supports both. All sources/classes except Psionic have an innate lean toward one of the specialties, and some options may require that you have a certain specialty in order to use them (or may get stronger because you have that specialty). E.g., a "Paladin" is a defense-specialized Divine character, with a variable side of healing mojo; by investing further into other support-related things, said Paladin may also pick up a minor or reduced form of support specialization, which when coupled with the innate support leaning of Divine characters, may allow him to be both an excellent protector of his team and an excellent provider of healing, restoration, and force-multiplication.

Loosely, each of the six associates with certain ability scores. Martial with Strength (or Dex), Divine with Wisdom (or Cha), Primal with Con (or Str), Arcane with Int (or Cha), Shadow with Dex (or Int), Psionic with Cha (or Wis). Doesn't mean other ability scores couldn't be relevant, just that those are loosely understood to be useful to most characters of the given source/class. E.g. a "Paladin" (defense-specialty Divine character) values Charisma, but also values Strength and Constitution because those are useful for wearing heavy armor, using heavy weapons, and taking hits. A "Ninja" (defense-specialty Shadow character) values Dexterity, but also values Wisdom and Constitution, because their fighting style is about observation, pinpoint strikes, and never getting hit in the first place (but being able to take it when a hit does land).

*Normally I'd prefer something else, but this power source is rather diverse, combining "dark wizard" types, ninjas, assassins, demonologists, necromancers, and alchemists under one roof. And most synonyms are either excessively bland, obscure (like "Larrikin"), or overly-specific (like "Spy" or "Ruffian").

 

[squibbles]

Now that the thread has been going for a little bit, here is my entry:

I organized the casters into broad themes (maybe more like tones) and the martial casters mechanically. New classes are in orange, places the current classes go are in blue.

1. diabolist—casters with dark and ominous powers; intelligence caster with pact magic, known spells, and eldritch invocations
   • sorcerer, no additional subclasses included (being born with magical powers because you're descended from a supernatural entity always struck me as being inherently ominous)
   • warlock with a couple variations for its subclasses representing different entities
   • necromancer wizard
2. enchanter—casters that manipulate minds and have a fey or playful aspect; charisma caster with known spells
   • bard, no additional subclasses included
   • beguiler (i.e. enchanter wizard since the name is already taken for the class)
   • illusionist wizard
3. warrior—catchall for the fighty classes (it could also be named fighter, I'm agnostic, but calling it a warrior helps to mark it as different)
   • barbarian, no additional subclasses included
   • paladin—1/3 caster, no additional subclasses included
   • open hand monk
   • beastmaster ranger (a non-casting one)
   • the most thematic fighter subclasses
4. rogue—catchall for the skilled and sneaky classes
   • ranger (a non-casting one), no additional subclasses included
   • way of shadows monk
   • the most thematic rogue subclasses
5. thaumaturge—casters with religious overtones; wisdom caster with prepared spells
   • cleric with variations for its most thematic subclasses—life, light, death, etc.
   • druid with variations for moon and not-moon druid subclasses
6. wizard—the book-learnin' casters; intelligence caster with prepared spells
   • artificer—rebalanced as a full caster… somehow
   • remaining wizard subclasses

I have two martial classes and four caster classes. I don't include any half-casters. I have at least one caster class for every mental ability score. I have two prepared casters and two known casters. I have one pact magic caster. Most of the names are thematic, thaumaturge is the only one that feels a little iffy.

Is it needlessly complicated? Yes, absolutely!

 

[see]

I'm going to throw in two additional restrictions on my approach. First, the resulting class list has to look to someone who played AD&D like it is an evolution of the game they played, rather than something invented whole-cloth anew. Second, it has to involve minimal changes from what 5e actually did. That is, something that would look like what the actual designers of D&D 5th would have done if they'd been under a "six classes and no more" restriction.

Under those restrictions . . .

The first consolidation is easy enough; Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger all become various subclasses of the Fighter. The ones that cast spells even use the same one-third caster table as the Eldritch Knight. The 5e fighter's extra ASI/feats move over into the subclasses, so they can be swapped out for subclass-specific features as necessary. The biggest change from general 5e design is that the spellcasting subclasses are given their own spell lists instead of using a class list. Consolidating the half-caster lists into third-caster lists might also require going back to the older editions' approach of spells having different levels on different spell lists.

The second is also easy enough; Sorcerer is just an Innate Wizard instead of a Book Wizard. The school-based subclasses of Wizard mostly get dropped or substantially reworked in the process.

The third sees Druids and Warlocks basically converted into Cleric domains. This will disappoint fans of the ultra-flexible-customizable Warlock options, but all we're after here is the "essentials" of each class, and the core here is that your power comes from some sort of outside force that has chosen you. One further change might be breaking down the cleric spell list into a handful of spheres, and giving each domain a different set of them.

And, oh, hey, we've already reached six: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard. Reworking Monk and Rogue into one lightly-armored skilled striker class doesn't even need to be tried.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm surprised how many people think Bard needs to be its own class. I mostly think of it as a rogue with a lute. If you also want a bunch of spells, multi-class.

 

[Greg K]

Best I can do is reduce down to nine

Courtier
Crusader

• Oathsworn
• Paladin
• Templar

Hunter

• Monster Hunter
• Scout
• Witch Hunter

Mage

• Enchanter
• Sorcerer
• Abyssal Warlock
• Fey Warlock
• Infernal Warlock

Martilal Artist: Light and no armored fighters. Maneuvers and Precise Martial Strikes

• Brawler
• Corsair
• Duelist
• Gallant
• Musketeer
• Kensei
• Swashbuckler

Priest: Robed and Light Armored Holy People

• Monk
• Oracle
• Shaman

Scholar

• Alchemist
• Artificer
• Astrologer
• Sage

Thief: Backstabby sneak attack rogues

• Assassin
• Burglar
• Charlatan

Warrior: Medium and Heavy Armor warriors

• Knight
• Soldier
• Warlord

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm surprised how many people think Bard needs to be its own class. I mostly think of it as a rogue with a lute. If you also want a bunch of spells, multi-class.

You wouldn't even need to multi-class. Bard as a rogue subclass could have spells as part of its design. If you want more spells (like, for example, closer to what the current 5e bard has), then yeah, you multiclass Wizard. I mean, in current 5e you could make a Rogue-Wizard with an Entertainer background that would play almost entirely like a bard.

I feel the same way about the Paladin. It's mostly a Fighter/Cleric is it not? Does anyone ever bother to make a Fighter/Cleric? They just play a paladin if they want that combo, don't they? I think there's a reason there's not a lot of ideas for Paladin subclasses. It pretty much IS a subclass. Or a multiclass. Or both.

 

[squibbles]

Man, thanks for the great and varied responses guys--one departing drastically from precedent and another doubling down on it.

Well, I am opposed to class reductionism solely for its own sake, so before I give any other answers, I wish to register my grievances with the fundamental concept. "Less is more" is only valid when you actually DO MORE with less.

But, because I don't just want to threadcrap and have actually been thinking on it, sure, let's do this thing--and because I can use a thing I've thought on before.

See, I like the idea of the MTG color wheel. It's interesting, and can be exploited for both thematic and mechanical structure. I'm a sucker for places where rich thematic structure is, at the very same time, rigorous mechanical structure. And it turns out, we have a rather handy tool for differentiating stuff; 4e called it "power source."

My "six" (really, "five plus one") options would thus be
Martial
Divine
Primal
Arcane
Shadow
+
Psionic

Or, if you prefer "class"-style names rather than "source"-style names (not my preference, but there's no real difference in this context), that would be Warrior, Cleric, Shaman, Mage, Shadow,* and Mystic. Each of these then can specialize in offense, defense, control, or support; so a support-focused Cleric is a Priest, a support-focused Mage is a Bard, a support-focused Warrior is a Warlord (or whatever term you prefer). The Psionic source/Mystic class stands out from the others because it has no specialization--its special feature is that it picks and chooses from the whole scope of Psionic options, in a "the Green Lantern Ring is the most powerful weapon in the universe" kind of way. This would be balanced by (a) giving the Mystic very minimal baseline class features, so they have to leverage the synergy of their abilities to "keep up with the Joneses," and (b) including some kind of resource mechanic and/or reduced amount of abilities, to ensure that the greater freedom does not directly translate to immediately greater power.

The aforementioned specializations are something you choose early on, giving you a clear and defined facility with that aspect of play. All characters have the potential to grow into/"officially" acquire other specialties, or blend the benefits of two specialties in a way that supports both. All sources/classes except Psionic have an innate lean toward one of the specialties, and some options may require that you have a certain specialty in order to use them (or may get stronger because you have that specialty). E.g., a "Paladin" is a defense-specialized Divine character, with a variable side of healing mojo; by investing further into other support-related things, said Paladin may also pick up a minor or reduced form of support specialization, which when coupled with the innate support leaning of Divine characters, may allow him to be both an excellent protector of his team and an excellent provider of healing, restoration, and force-multiplication.

Loosely, each of the six associates with certain ability scores. Martial with Strength (or Dex), Divine with Wisdom (or Cha), Primal with Con (or Str), Arcane with Int (or Cha), Shadow with Dex (or Int), Psionic with Cha (or Wis). Doesn't mean other ability scores couldn't be relevant, just that those are loosely understood to be useful to most characters of the given source/class. E.g. a "Paladin" (defense-specialty Divine character) values Charisma, but also values Strength and Constitution because those are useful for wearing heavy armor, using heavy weapons, and taking hits. A "Ninja" (defense-specialty Shadow character) values Dexterity, but also values Wisdom and Constitution, because their fighting style is about observation, pinpoint strikes, and never getting hit in the first place (but being able to take it when a hit does land).

*Normally I'd prefer something else, but this power source is rather diverse, combining "dark wizard" types, ninjas, assassins, demonologists, necromancers, and alchemists under one roof. And most synonyms are either excessively bland, obscure (like "Larrikin"), or overly-specific (like "Spy" or "Ruffian").

Thanks for being a good sport, it's all just a creative exercise in the end.

I like the list of classes you ended with even though the class names weren't your focus--Warrior, Cleric, Shaman, Mage, Shadow, and Mystic--I feel like a lot of information is communicated by evocative names (my earlier comment about Shaman notwithstanding). "Defense-specialty Martial character" for example doesn't have quite the same oomf as defensive Warrior. Likewise, the MTG colors are super evocative with a lot of room for nuance.

I'm going to throw in two additional restrictions on my approach. First, the resulting class list has to look to someone who played AD&D like it is an evolution of the game they played, rather than something invented whole-cloth anew. Second, it has to involve minimal changes from what 5e actually did. That is, something that would look like what the actual designers of D&D 5th would have done if they'd been under a "six classes and no more" restriction.

Under those restrictions . . .

The first consolidation is easy enough; Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger all become various subclasses of the Fighter. The ones that cast spells even use the same one-third caster table as the Eldritch Knight. The 5e fighter's extra ASI/feats move over into the subclasses, so they can be swapped out for subclass-specific features as necessary. The biggest change from general 5e design is that the spellcasting subclasses are given their own spell lists instead of using a class list. Consolidating the half-caster lists into third-caster lists might also require going back to the older editions' approach of spells having different levels on different spell lists.

The second is also easy enough; Sorcerer is just an Innate Wizard instead of a Book Wizard. The school-based subclasses of Wizard mostly get dropped or substantially reworked in the process.

The third sees Druids and Warlocks basically converted into Cleric domains. This will disappoint fans of the ultra-flexible-customizable Warlock options, but all we're after here is the "essentials" of each class, and the core here is that your power comes from some sort of outside force that has chosen you. One further change might be breaking down the cleric spell list into a handful of spheres, and giving each domain a different set of them.

And, oh, hey, we've already reached six: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard. Reworking Monk and Rogue into one lightly-armored skilled striker class doesn't even need to be tried.

Awesome! Love the extra self-imposed restrictions, and all of your reasoning makes intuitive sense to me.

And yet, the final list of classes--Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard--feels odd from an a priori perspective. I would have never picked bard and monk for the final cut.

 

[squibbles]

I'm surprised how many people think Bard needs to be its own class. I mostly think of it as a rogue with a lute. If you also want a bunch of spells, multi-class.

Agreed.

[...]
I feel the same way about the Paladin. It's mostly a Fighter/Cleric is it not? Does anyone ever bother to make a Fighter/Cleric? They just play a paladin if they want that combo, don't they? I think there's a reason there's not a lot of ideas for Paladin subclasses. It pretty much IS a subclass. Or a multiclass. Or both.

Yeah, considering the Cleric's weird and gamist origins as a sort of a gish class that didn't get spells at 1st level and gained spell levels slower than a Magic User, the 5e Paladin and Cleric feel like they took that starting point, kept very similar theming, and went in different directions along the gish continuum.