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

Tallifer

Adventurer
I think the Druid and Fighter (or a multiclass thereof) can cover the two sides of the Ranger and Barbarian. Wizard can cover all the arcane classes. Rogue all the sneaky stuff.
The Cleric and Fighter can cover the Paladin. The Bard and Monk simply have awesome fluff.
 

akr71

Explorer
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?
I feel the same way, but if we strip it down to the big 4, how does one create a bard, monk or barbarian for example. We could go old school for the bard and make them dual class rogue, then druid and then they become a bard - I'd be happy with this because we'd see a lot fewer bards and it is my least favorite class.

It could be a rogue/wizard who invests heavily in skills and charisma too.

The monk? Dex based fighter with some unarmed strike type feats?

Barbarian? Dunno, maybe its time for this rage induced class to go to anger management classes and learn some yoga.
 

Mister-Kent

Explorer
Haven't voted yet because I haven't finalized my decisions, but I'd definitely keep Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric.

Barbarian I'd fold into Fighter somehow. Druid would just become a Nature domain Cleric. Sorcerer and Warlock could just be special wizard types. Honestly I'd be tempted to fold Monk and Ranger into Fighter as well and Bard into Rogue. So if we gotta choose 7 to keep I'm kinda stumped.
 

dnd4vr

Hero
Haven't voted yet because I haven't finalized my decisions, but I'd definitely keep Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric.

Barbarian I'd fold into Fighter somehow. Druid would just become a Nature domain Cleric. Sorcerer and Warlock could just be special wizard types. Honestly I'd be tempted to fold Monk and Ranger into Fighter as well and Bard into Rogue. So if we gotta choose 7 to keep I'm kinda stumped.
I can understand your dilemma but that is also why I challenged people to vote for all seven you would keep. Pretty much every class can be folded into the main four, and even further down if you really want to.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Four weapon using classes and three spellcasting classes.

Fighter, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue. All four base classes should be able to have STR builds and DEX builds, and have no spellcasting. However, each of the four should have a single subclass that grants spellcasting (either 1/2 or 1/3 casting.) Subclasses are selected at 1st level.

Bard, Cleric, and Wizard-- one that uses CHA, one that uses WIS, and one that uses INT. However, I'd also put in a Variant rule in the game that allows each of their subclasses (College, Domain, and School) to change what their primary ability score is. So College of Valor would use CHA, but College of Lore could use INT. A Life Domain cleric uses WIS, but a Knowledge Domain cleric uses INT and a Trickery Domain uses CHA. A Divination School uses INT, while a Necromancy School uses WIS and an Enchantment School uses CHA.

All three base classes would be spellcasting first and foremost, with each one having at least one or two subclasses that allows for martial combat. So College of Valor, War Domain, Evocation School could all grant some bonus weapon and armor proficiencies as part of their 1st level subclass abilities.
 

dnd4vr

Hero
Four weapon using classes and three spellcasting classes.

Fighter, Paladin, Ranger and Rogue. All four base classes should be able to have STR builds and DEX builds, and have no spellcasting. However, each of the four should have a single subclass that grants spellcasting (either 1/2 or 1/3 casting.) Subclasses are selected at 1st level.

Bard, Cleric, and Wizard-- one that uses CHA, one that uses WIS, and one that uses INT. However, I'd also put in a Variant rule in the game that allows each of their subclasses (College, Domain, and School) to change what their primary ability score is. So College of Valor would use CHA, but College of Lore could use INT. A Life Domain cleric uses WIS, but a Knowledge Domain cleric uses INT and a Trickery Domain uses CHA. A Divination School uses INT, while a Necromancy School uses WIS and an Enchantment School uses CHA.

All three base classes would be spellcasting first and foremost, with each one having at least one or two subclasses that allows for martial combat. So College of Valor, War Domain, Evocation School could all grant some bonus weapon and armor proficiencies as part of their 1st level subclass abilities.
Hmm... that plays a bit into what I've been thinking.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
7 is too many. 4 plus subclasses. Maybe just 2.
I feel you here. I’d use the core 4 as the only classes, with the other classes as subclasses.

Fighter
  • Barbarian
  • Paladin
  • Ranger

Mage
  • Sorcerer
  • Warlock
  • Wizard

Mystic
  • Cleric
  • Druid
  • Monk

Rogue
  • Assassin
  • Bard
  • Thief

I could see swapping Monk and Bard, if you changed the monk’s flavor.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I don't actually care that much about the big 4. I think rogues are nice to keep but fighters are generally sort of boring, other spellcasters are more interesting than wizards. Clerics I keep because I think monks, druids, rangers, maybe even warlocks can actually be slotted into the chassis. Sorcerers, especially if we apply some of the neat changes PF2E has made to that classes structure, can cover the rest of casters pretty well. I kept bard because I love bard but it could easily be a variant or variants of rogue or sorcerer. Barbarian I kept because its more interesting than a fighter to me but I'd also bring the interesting fighter subclasses here, so really I want it to be a combo of the two.

I also don't disagree with the thoughts of others that we could reduce to 4 classes and then use subclasses to expand out to other ideas.

Sort of at cross purposes with that last paragraph, but I'd also be down with removing the chassis of each class and having all the subclasses be their own thing, but not necessarily full 1-20 classes (I believe this might be vaguely similar to prestige classes but I didn't play in those editions so I'm not sure how close it is).
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
This one is easy!

Classes to keep (because you insist on seven, like the deadly sins ... DIBS ON LUST!)

The Core 4
Fighting Man, Magic User, Thief, Cleric ....erm
Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric

The True 2
(these are the classes that are their best possible selves in 5e)
Monk, Warlock

That Other One
Barbarian. Because at least he isn't going PEW PEW PEW with spells.

And the classes to cut?
Paladin, paladin, paladin, paladin, and paladin.
 

Ashrym

Adventurer
I think the Druid and Fighter (or a multiclass thereof) can cover the two sides of the Ranger and Barbarian. Wizard can cover all the arcane classes. Rogue all the sneaky stuff.
The Cleric and Fighter can cover the Paladin. The Bard and Monk simply have awesome fluff.
Not really directed at you but using this post as an example. Based on the logic in the post a bard could cover all the arcane and divine spell casters because of the diverse spell list. What can be rolled into another class can sometimes be reversed the other direction. ;)

It's something to keep in mind with those types of assessments. Quite honestly, all the combat classes could be rolled into fighter / subclass options and all the casters could be rolled into bard / subclass options. The rest is just preference and class bias. ;)
 

OB1

Jedi Master
I chose to get rid of the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue because they are the core 4 and I'm feeling contrarian this morning. Also got rid of Ranger because I had to pick a fifth to drop and it's role can be replaced by mixing the right background with a Druid, Ancient's Paladin or Warlock build.
 
I feel the same way, but if we strip it down to the big 4, how does one create a bard, monk or barbarian for example.
If it's otherwise 5e-design-style:
the Bard could be a Rogue sub-class with a bit of magic or support auras
Berserker could be a fighter sub-class, like the battlerager in SCAG, but "Barbarian" could be a background.
Monk could be an unarmed-combat-specialist fighter sub-class and/or a mystical/acetic background.
 

dagger

Explorer
I
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. :)
I voted the same. Love me some 1e/2e
 

Wiseblood

Adventurer
Not really directed at you but using this post as an example. Based on the logic in the post a bard could cover all the arcane and divine spell casters because of the diverse spell list. What can be rolled into another class can sometimes be reversed the other direction. ;)

It's something to keep in mind with those types of assessments. Quite honestly, all the combat classes could be rolled into fighter / subclass options and all the casters could be rolled into bard / subclass options. The rest is just preference and class bias. ;)
Save room just have one spell list.

I was thinking the same thing. It would open the door for mistic class whose subclasses could be Monk and Psion. Powers not spells.

Warlock could be the anti-paladin, warlock and summoner.
 

Gadget

Explorer
The the game has been going with thinning the line between divine and arcane magic, I think the cleric could be subsumed into a sorcerer type class. You could have "White Mages" and such, that get access to different spells. I kind of like what Sorcerer (and Warlock) have done with new ways to see magic, so I want to keep one of those. The Ranger has been unsatisfactory in most of the recent editions of the game, so fold that into the Fighter. Same for barbarian. Might as well throw the paladin in as well. Maybe keep the monk around for it's flavor and uniqueness.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
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.
Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard

I love Bard, Druid, and feel like there is something unique enough to have them included. I also feel like there is a nice place for Warlock as well.

If I had to cut down to 7, I'd have to model Rangers as Fighters and Paladins as Cleric or Fighter types. Sorcerer's would need to be some Wizard subclass or variant or something because I do like that concept of an inborn power/spontaneous caster.
 

3catcircus

Explorer
I picked other. Really it should have been "none of them" instead. I want D&D to no longer be a class/level based system so that you can get even further towards the idea of a actually-effective sword-wielding Gandalf, or a Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or any of a number of fantasy characters that D&D doesn't do a good job of portraying.

I want a lifepath-based system where you could bounce from being a cleric to a administrator to a gladiator, for example, and not do so out of a necessity to take "x levels in this class so I can get these specific abilities."

How many times have we seen ridiculous characters with a string of levels in multiple classes just to get one specific ability out of them?
 

Advertisement

Top