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

[Remathilis]

Really at this point, there aren't many classes I'm willing to sacrifice. The 12 in the PHB (plus artificer and eventually the psion) all have earned a niche in the game and they aren't really replicated by subclasses as 5e has implemented them. You'd have to do something closer to 2e Skills & Powers or 3e generic classes (or some other variant of build-a-class) to begin to emulate the core identity of a bard, druid, monk or warlock.

That's not too say some could be done better (the Sorcerer and Ranger in particular suffer from some uninspiring designs) but I think they all have earned the right to exist alongside the fighter or wizard classes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have also long argued that I kind of wish that warlock and sorcerer were one class using a combination of metamagic and pact casting as their mechanic. Flavor wise you'd either pick a patron or origin for you magic; both get their from an external force, it really just depends on how many generations back and whether or not the source is sentient.

I kind of like this idea. I have always felt both classes were sort of half-complete. Combining them into a single class could be interesting. I'll think on this.

 

[MoonSong]

both get their from an external force, it really just depends on how many generations back and whether or not the source is sentient.

For the sorcerer it isn't an external source. It is an origin, a justification for why they have their internal powers. But they remain internal. -I.e. Someone inherited a ton of money from her grandma, do anything to the grandma and she keeps the money. Vis a vis someone else who has a comfortable lifestyle thanks to an insanely rich su..."sponsor" . Take the "sponsor" no more money-

 

[Arnwolf666]

Fighter, mage, cleric, rogue, paladin, monk, and bard. I think the barbarian and ranger can easily be role played as fighters.
The warlock is a anathema to me.
druid could easily just be a nature cleric for rp purposes.
I would like sorcerers more if they had no meta magic and really focused on bloodline abilities.

 

[Ashrym]

Bards are starting to pull ahead of druids. I think that's the classic "best 5th" crack-fill role.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bards are starting to pull ahead of druids. I think that's the classic "best 5th" crack-fill role.

If anyone can fill the party's need to score crack (or X or molly), it'd be the bard.

 

[Shardstone]

Warlock - Fighter - Ranger - Druid - Sorcerer - Barbarian - Artificer

 

[Don Durito]

It's interesting how much this is coloured by 5E.

10 or 15 years ago I doubt Rangers would have been so low or Paladins quite so high.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's interesting how much this is coloured by 5E.

10 or 15 years ago I doubt Rangers would have been so low or Paladins quite so high.

I suspect because the Paladin is effectively the best Gish in the game.

I think that people want to keep the warlock more than the sorcerer because it's more "different" than the wizard, but also far more versatile. You can do a lot of things with the warlock chassis (including a pretty decent Gish).

Edit: I'm also surprised that the monk is slightly higher than the barbarian - personally I think it's more unique, but I expected the overall opinion to favor the barbarian. And despite people poo-pooing the ranger, it remains higher than either monk or barbarian.

 

[Ancalagon]

I thought about this, and besides the "big four", I want an alternate divine-ish caster, so the druid. Because the druid is nature focused, I can exclude the ranger and the barbarian, so I take the monk as an alternate warrior (and also somewhat alternate rogue). For an alternate arcane caster I take the warlock because of it's flexibility.
feh on the bard!