5E What Seven Classes Would You Keep? (and why!)

Which Seven Classes Would You Keep? (please vote for all seven and thanks!)

  • Barbarian

    Votes: 39 24.8%
  • Bard

    Votes: 88 56.1%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 138 87.9%
  • Druid

    Votes: 87 55.4%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 144 91.7%
  • Monk

    Votes: 39 24.8%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 85 54.1%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 61 38.9%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 145 92.4%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 20 12.7%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 51 32.5%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 142 90.4%
  • Other (PLEASE post what and why!)

    Votes: 13 8.3%

  • Total voters
    157

dnd4vr

Adventurer
So, I've been thinking lately about classes and archetypes. Many of you probably see this in my threads about the Battle Master, "Which Class is Best", etc.

For reasons to be disclosed later on, if you HAD to remove 5 classes from the core 12, keeping only 7, which ones would you want to see left in the game? Which ones really aren't necessary in your opinion.

Like the other poll, you can keep a class of any reason you want. Popularity, power, niche protection, playability, fun, or whatever.

As always, thanks to any and all who participate! I really appreciate your time and thoughts.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I would keep the 8 2E ones. Big 4 plus.

Ranger
Paladin
Bard
Druid

If I had to cut one if them probably bard.

Actually cut Ranger, if it wasn't 5E I would cut the bard.

Ranger cut because it's not that greatly designed and a fighter/druid or fighter/nature cleric would be close enough.

Paladin would be the next cut.
 
Last edited:

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
For me I'd choose the cleric, druid, fighter, rogue, wizard, and (because I had to pick 7) the paladin and ranger.

Warlock and Sorcerer I think could just be a subclass of wizard (one character I want to play is a sorcerer based on the oracle of Delphi which I'm planning on using the wizard class and I'm not even going to bother with the spellbook, just prepping spells and not changing them).

Barbarian's rage mechanic could easily fit into the fighter and in turn, barbarian would just be a kind of background. Monk doesn't need to be in the core book, I'd probably move it to a supplement for an oriental adventures style setting. Bard I see as just a rogue with a little magic (or even a fighter with a little magic, they don't have to be an expert skill user) and would be fine with an arcane or druidic style bard subclass for rogue.

I could easily trim out the paladin and ranger as well and turn them into subclasses.
 
Any character can be a traveling story/telling musician performer - so bard is out
A barbarian is just an angry fighter - so barbarian is out (even though I love the rage mechanic)
A paladin is just a fighter with a code and some spells - easy to replicate the basic concept in various ways without needing a class
Ranger - A fighter that's good in the wilderness - easy to replicate in various ways
Sorcerer - Casting magic through sheer strength of will is cool - but nearly any caster can be played as innately skilled at his art compared to others who practice it. I guess the best thing about it is that it gives you some ties to dragons - but then again - any character can already have that without a class.
 
Personally I wish the class list was more expansive, and less focused on unique mechanics. I don't view classes as archetypes. I view classes as the embodiment of mechanical support for a particular character I want to play.
Multiclassing just doesn't do it for me. It's just so rarely cohesive enough to mechanically support the character concepts I want to play from level 1 to 20.
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
Personally I wish the class list was more expansive, and less focused on unique mechanics. I don't view classes as archetypes. I view classes as the embodiment of mechanical support for a particular character I want to play.
Multiclassing just doesn't do it for me. It's just so rarely cohesive enough to mechanically support the character concepts I want to play from level 1 to 20.
Interesting. I am just the opposite. I don't like cross-over via archetypes because I feel the same thing can be accomplished by multiclassing. Why have eldritch knight, when I can player a fighter/wizard?

Thanks for your insight!
 

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
So here it goes:
We can get rid of the Cleric, it's kind of a mish-mash of themes that would be better suited as a subclass for each other class.

The Rogue, well it only really serves as a way to tell Fighters that they aren't allowed to be good at skills. Merging the two means you have a mundane class that is good both in and out of combat, which is what most people really want when they start griping on about magic.

Sorcerer and Warlock could also be merged, albeit more evenly. Invocations would could be flavored as Mutations to make sorcerers more powerful and diverse, while Metamagic would help the warlock problem of spamming the same spells over and over.

At this point I have technically removed 5 classes, but replaced them with two new ones.
So to make the list down to 7 classes, I guess I would have to take out the Paladin (which is just Fighter+ Divine), and I guess the Monk? Monk has always been kind of a outlier class, just make it so Fighters are competent at punching things and call it a day.
 

Tun Kai Poh

Explorer
Artificer (with magic, also reskinned as a non-magical tinker for steampunk/pulp/modern campaigns)
Bard
Fighter (with special abilities for firearms for steampunk/pulp/modern)
Ranger (with special abilities for firearms for steampunk/pulp/modern)
Rogue
Warlord (because I'm a big 4e fan)
Wizard
 
Interesting. I am just the opposite. I don't like cross-over via archetypes because I feel the same thing can be accomplished by multiclassing. Why have eldritch knight, when I can player a fighter/wizard?

Thanks for your insight!
I understand that too. There's a number of 5e design decisions that make such multiclassed characters mechanically unsatisfying to me. To name a few:

-auto scaling cantrips
-class power gains are more tied to specific level breakpoints (example: level 5) than a gradual scaling of power by level.

There's definitely systems where multiclassing would feel adaquate to me to accomplish my concepts - but not 5e.
 

Lidgar

Explorer
The 1e PHB (not including the Bard in the appendix) classes on your list: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.

Reason: I'm old and get off my lawn. That, and I have 1e characters with all those classes, so want to keep them. :)
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
Fighter (subclasses to support barbarian, paladin tropes)
Rogue (subclasses to support ranger tropes)
Monk/Pugilist
Other: Warlord
Other: Artificer (Int half-caster)
Druid (subclasses to support some wizard, cleric tropes)
Bard (subclasses to support some wizard, warlock tropes)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The 1e PHB (not including the Bard in the appendix) classes on your list: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.
Same here, except I voted "Other" instead of "Paladin".

I'd rather see a Knight or Cavalier class, that could include Paladin but be much broader in scope.

Beyond that - yeah, the core 6, on the condition that it's the 1e version of Ranger we get to keep and not the bastardized pathetic 5e wannabe version.
 
"Hero" being a generic action hero type, subsuming Fighter, Rogue, and portions of Ranger/Paladin?
Yep - all things not supernatural....
...including Warlord, really, I just needed a 7th, and, y'know, Warlord

The others are also meant to stand on for a whole source. Artificer can skate closer to technology than arcana.
 

Wiseblood

Adventurer
I recently started a campaign and only allowed the following classes.

Bard
Druid
Fighter
Rogue
Warlock
Sorcerer

These classes I felt were the most likely to gain magic. Druids went underground (literally). Warlocks encountered or were enlisted by patrons. Bards snooped around and gathered all kinds of info. Sorcerers were born into it. Fighters and rogues are always going to be.

The premise being that a powerful overlord had eradicated the worship of deities and hunted down wizards, paladins, rangers and clerics. Monks had never emerged as a thing. Barbarians weren’t treated as a class just a culture.
 

Gladius Legis

Adventurer
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, because Core 4.

Bard is safely in as both a popular option and traditionally a solid fifth member of the party that can veer toward any number of supporting roles.

Paladin also pretty safely in. Also very popular (or popular to hate). And iconic to D&D whatever else one may think of the class.

The last one, I waffled between Druid and Ranger, but voted Ranger since survey results indicate it tends to be more popular.
 

Advertisement

Top