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

Sacrosanct

Legend
Big 4 plus Druid, monk, and warlock. Why? Because everything else can fit as a subclass. Classes should bring a distinct uniqueness if only 7. I’m not even a fan of the warlock, but it is a very unique class with what it brings.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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!
IME multiclassing almost always leads to an unsatisfying kludge character that kinda fulfills the desired concept on paper, but not very well in practice.

Like a Fighter or rogue/Druid as replacement for Ranger. Where are my skills? Why am I not any better at tracking than anyone else? Why can I turn into animals? Why do my spells not synergise at all with being a warrior? Why do the feature from the two concepts completely compete with each other instead of working together?

I’ve made some really fun MC characters, but I’ve never made one that was MC because no subclass fit the concept, where that character wasn’t incredibly unsatisfying to actually play.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Anyway, I chose;

Bard, Rogue, Ranger, Monk, Druid, Warlock, Paladin.

But really I wouldn’t ever accept a version of dnd that did away with any PHB class, and the lack of Artificer and warlord and psion in 5e is still my biggest problem with the edition.
 

Lucas Yew

Explorer
I chose by mechanics first, fluff second;

Barbarian (STR based, instinctual warrior)
Cleric (WIS based, know entire spell list, received full caster)
Monk (DEX based, wuxia genre enabler)
Ranger (DEX based, methodical warrior, half caster)
Sorcerer (CHA based, pure spontaneous, innate talent full caster)
Warlock (CHA based, unique yet favorite slot progression, pseudo-full caster)
Wizard (INT based, learn each spell separately, academic full caster)

----

Why the others are out is as follows...

Bard (like another post above, anyone can play music to cheer up)
Druid (nature themed priest, thematic overlap with nature domain cleric)
Paladin (the grueling alignment problem, plus that I loathe the "chosen one" trope)

But especially these two (hopefully ripped and gestalted among Barbs/Monks/Rangers);

Fighter (normal guy who fights ain't enough for the superheroic levels)
Rogue (guy who does skills ain't enough, even more so than fighter)
 

fobia

Villager
I would keep the Sorcerer.

I know a lot of people don't like them mechanically in 5e. And I think it's a valid criticism.
But the concept of a caster that wills spells into existence is way cooler than the whole "I play my flute and FIREBALL!"-shtick of the Bard. Don't like that. Bards need to go.
;)

I let go of

Barbarian and Monk because they could be realized as a Fighter subclass for example.

Paladin because I prefer mundane classes fighting with magical stuff over magical fighters.

Warlock because it's coolest features, the invocations, can also be achieved by pact-making or infernal contracts with other classes.

Bards because I have zero musical talent and can not for the love of god imagine how to produce magic with an instrument. Also the only inspiration I ever had for a Bard was "The music of Erich Zann" and then my friend played that concept. Bard players are the worst.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Hero
bard, cleric, fighter, ranger, rogue, paladin, wizard

Those are the most iconic D&D classes, imo.
Swap bard with Druid and I would agree. It didn't really exist until 2E.

1E one was more if a prestige class. Next 1E bard I see will be the 1st one.

It's just really good in 5E.
 

Hriston

Adventurer
I chose cleric, druid, fighter monk, paladin, rogue, and wizard because those are the classes first introduced in D&D (1974) and its supplements.
 

Erekose

Adventurer
Hmm - I went for Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard because I prefer martial classes over magic-based classes and conceptually (if not mechanically) Druid could be rolled into Cleric and Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock could be rolled into Wizard. Similarly Monk could be rolled, at least conceptually, into either Cleric or Fighter.
 

Horwath

Explorer
One option would be 3 classes

Warrior
Expert
Mage

with bunch of subclasses,

or, 5 classes, based on spell aptitude;

full caster, spell levels 1-10, 10th level spells at 19th level
2/3 caster(3.5e bard). spell levels 1-7, 7th level at 19th level
1/2 caster, spell levels 1-5, 5th level spells at 17th level
1/3 caster, spell levels 1-4, 4th level spells at 19th level
non-spellcaster.
 

Shiroiken

Adventurer
This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.
 

Don Durito

Explorer
This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.
Like Shadow of a Demon Lord?
 

Enrico Poli1

Explorer
I'll explain the classes that need improvement:

Barbarian is very good, but needs more attack power. It is disappointing that the Fighter is best at Dmg and Barbarian is best at tanking.

Druid: good overall, but (Moon) spikes at LVL 2, 20 and 20. Uneven.

Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer are subpar compared to other classes.
 

Ruin Explorer

Adventurer
I'd keep the main four, not because they are traditional but because they all represent distinct and useful archetypes. The least useful is Cleric, being a character that barely exists outside of D&D-influenced fantasy. Still that is a lot of fantasy nowadays.

Then I'd keep Bard, Warlock and Druid, because they are all also distinct and useful archetypes which have grown to have strong identities (stronger than Cleric I'd argue, in some ways).

Rangers have never had a solid identity and can be easily done by picking specific skills as a Fighter, or multiclassing, or as a Fighter subclass. I love Paladins but they could easily be a Divine Fighter subclass without losing flavour (they might lose some cool mechanics of course). Barbarians are even more indistinct than Rangers and again a Fighter subclass which had unarmoured combat and Rage would do the trick. Hell maybe even lose Rage - Barbarian and Berserker seem like different things to me. Sorcerer is a solution in search of a problem, and could be rolled into Warlocks in many cases. Metamagic is weird and doesn't sit well with post-3E D&D. I could see dropping the Metamagic angle and making Sorcerers and Psions a single class with a spell point mechanic, which would fit well with a lot of literary fantasy characters. Monks are distinct but always a weird fit and seem like they might be an option for another class (perhaps a generalised Mystic?) than a whole thing.

Of course, dropping nothing is my preference. More classes are better than fewer with D&D-style mechanics, but those are what I'd pick.
 

Ruin Explorer

Adventurer
IME multiclassing almost always leads to an unsatisfying kludge character that kinda fulfills the desired concept on paper, but not very well in practice.
3E/5E style MC, which is more similar to 2E dual-classing, absolutely does. 2E-style MC did not, in my experience. Also Ranger is best replicated by a special subclass for Fighter or by a Fighter/Rogue. Druid doesn't need to get involved.
 

Ruin Explorer

Adventurer
This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.
I think you can resolve the Psion issue by making a spell point-based caster be the default caster rather than a Vancian one and have a Vancian option be a subclass. Then you have a versatile magic user base class. At the same time I'd make Cleric be the support class rather than the Divine class, and other support classes could come out of that, whereas offensive Clerics could roll into magic user subclasses and Paladins etc into Fighter subclasses. I'd rename base classes to a more 2E scheme in that case (ie Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage). I guess 2E show this is not entirely original thinking!
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
Given we were given more choices than half of the options available, its probably easier to talk about the classes I wouldn't include.
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Monk are all just thematic variations on Fighter, with added western/eastern mysticism or just trying to create a specific character from a book. - Making them all separate dilutes the potential capabilities of the fighter class. Pare down the base class a bit, and have subclasses or other in-class choices be more powerful.

Sorceror is a little too close to Wizard: Remove the spellbook, and you have the sorceror. (Warlock I kept because its actual mechanics are distinct enough to be a separate class, even though you could probably cover a lot of the came concepts.)

Druid's niche is pretty close to cleric. A subclass of cleric with some equipment and spell restrictions, and access to more shapechanging spells would work.

Bard I kept, although I would change it so that Warlords and other support characters would fit just as well.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
No druids because I hate nature boys and no more studded leather gripes.
No monks because Kung Fu is Phooney unless it Hong Kong or Jackie Chan.
Paladins yes because everyone hates thems.
No Token rangers.
Sorcerer and warlocks are just no class wizards. Harry said so.
 

Advertisement

Top