D&D General Going back to Basic(s). A thought experiment.

[payn]

Lets get real here; it should just be Human Bard.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Lets get real here; it should just be Human Bard.

For Paranoia, maybe!

 

[Li Shenron]

As usual, having less classes or races to choose from does not make for a "simpler" game, so it's the wrong question to ask.

To have an even simpler game than 5e already is compared to other editions, you'd rather simplify the mechanics of combat and non-combat resolutions, for example by:

• removing action economy: have anything that's not moving be a simple "action", and a turn be just action+move
• removing all game-specific actions of the combat chapter other than attack, cast, and use an object; let the DM allow anything else reasonable as an action
• replacing all death and dying rules with "you die if you fall below 0 hp" or let the DM decide what happens
• removing the weapons and armor lists, having a fixed damage for all weapons and a fixed AC for all armors
• removing all rules for cover, visibility, searching, jumping... removing literally ANYTHING that determines or modify resolutions, except the generic ability score rolls and dis/advantage, and let the DM decide each situation
• removing all spell components

But to play along, you could try to select the 5 classes that seem to have the lowest complexity both in terms of less choices to make and simplest rules for their abilities, and attach the one subclass that similarly seems to be of lowest complexity. Then simplify even more if possible. I don't really think it matters to have 5 or 12 classes, that complicates choices at character creation, but if you intend to play a campaign then it won't make a difference after all players made their choice at level 1 (because you are not going to allow multiclassing in a theoretical exercise about simplifying the game, or you've already lost). And I don't think there are classes with enormous, non-debatable differences in complexity: one can argue that Sorcerer is easier than Wizard because it doesn't have to choose the daily list of spells, another that Wizard is easier than Sorcerer because it doesn't have to consider using sorcery points or metamagic. Maybe consider having a new spellcasting class that has neither of those features, instead of either Wizard or Sorcerer. In fact, that's what I would probably do: Warrior, Priest, Burglar and Mage, each of which possibly merging concepts from multiple classes by removal of abilities (if you're worried about characters getting weak, replace removed abilities with stat bonuses).

For races, just remove all mechanics and let players choose whatever creature they want for cosmetic reasons.

 

[Lanefan]

The book will have 5 races/species/whatever and 5 classes. And before anyone says anything yes I am aware that in old Basic there as just classes as Elf was a class and Dwarf was a class etc, but just go with me on this.

Out of the whole of 5E D&D what would you like to see as the Basic Core Races and Classes?

Let's also apply ONE subclass to represent the whole class. So not just Ranger but Beast Master Ranger as the one and only Ranger in Basic (and possibly filling the only frontline melee slot).

So, 5 classes with 1 attached subclass each and 4 races as we can assume Human is a default choice.

First off, I wouldn't use 5e as the chassis for even this much of the discussion; 5e's classes are so watered down that each would need a full redesign to fit into this framework.

That said,

Species:

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Hobbit
[Gnome or Part-Orc, I can't decide, pick one]

Classes (and I'll bend the subclass rules a bit here):

Fighter (sub: Ranger)
Cleric (sub: Druid)
Mage (sub: Illusionist and Necromancer)
Thief (sub: Assassin)
Bard (sub: none)

There's some big holes in that class list. For example, if we could drop a core class Bard would go, to be replaced with a second Cleric sub of War Cleric or Paladin. There's also no Knight/Cavalier or Swashbuckler, yet room for both. And no spontaneous casters, though I'm not sure that's a great loss.

Rangers would go back to their martial fighter-y roots. More Aragorn, less or no Drizz't.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You guys are thinking to much about what boils down to a "pick your top 5 races and classes" list.

In fairness, my "top 5 races and classes" is very different than, "What would you recommend in terms of classes and/or races for a streamlined version of 5e, akin to Moldvay's Basic?"

My top five classes:
Monk
Warlock
Fighter
Rogue
Anything but Bard

My top five races:
Human
Variant Human
Human, but something happened (Reborn, etc.).
Human, but in a different, more human-y way.
Anything but a soulless, dead-eyed elf.

 

[fuindordm]

I would cut down on the magic.

5 classes:

• Fighter (battlemaster) - but with simpler rules, like you have Xd6 per day that you can spend after an attack hits to add damage and a status effect. This covers the VERY common newbie requests like "I want to aim for its eyes" without begging the answer "Uh, D&D doesn't really let you do that..."
• Rogue (thief) - lots of fun utility abilities, much more freedom to take non attack actions in combat, stylish.
• Barbarian (wild heart) - I would have picked ranger if only we had one without spells. But this class can cover survivalists, trackers, and it wouldn't be hard to tack on animal companions with a free "animal friendship" ability applicable to just one natural animal at a time.
• Priest (anything but Light, so goddang boring)
• Wizard (anything but Evoker, so goddang boring)

5 races to get away from Tolkien while still being familiar:

• Orc (Klingon/Warcraft style) combat specialist
• Human : divine specialist (humans so religious)
• Dwarf : underground sneaky specialist
• Fey (3'-5' tall wispy elves, gnomes, and changelings --not eldar) arcane specialist
• Hengeyokai (am I spelling that right) : get the furry vote, and having 3 forms (human/animal/hybrid) is key to both fun and playability

 

[Quickleaf]

In fairness, my "top 5 races and classes" is very different than, "What would you recommend in terms of classes and/or races for a streamlined version of 5e, akin to Moldvay's Basic?"

My top five classes:
Monk
Warlock
Fighter
Rogue
Anything but Bard

My top five races:
Human
Variant Human
Human, but something happened (Reborn, etc.).
Human, but in a different, more human-y way.
Anything but a soulless, dead-eyed elf.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Lets get real here; it should just be Human Bard.

No more humans, please.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You could just read the post.

Uh.. I did. And they asked what would be in a Basic game that "trims things to the bone". That's not "What are your top 5 species and classes?", that's asking what I think the basic species and classes would be. To which the answer "the ones that were already published in the 5E Basic Rules" applies.

 

[TwoSix]

You guys are thinking to much about what boils down to a "pick your top 5 races and classes" list.

Ok, I'll answer what I think the question is, based on the original post and then this response. I'm reading it as "What would be a good, shrunk down list for a new Basic D&D assuming modern-day preferences?"

Races:
Human
Elf
Drow
Tiefling
Dragonborn

Classes:
Paladin (Oath of Devotion)
Warlock (Fiend, Chain Pact)
Sorcerer (Draconic)
Rogue (Thief)
Bard (Valor)
Fighter (Champion)