I keep the big four and then go back to the original alternate classes elf, dwarf and halfling
Well, I mean technically if you're going by the 1e PHB, then:Alas, only 7 were allowed, and the Monk failed his save.
Poor 2d4 monk!
Skill monkey, combat monkey, spell monkey.Personally I’d reduced everything to Three
Rogue - skill monkey class, Bard is a Rogue with Cha/Wis Skills and Powerz
Fighter - use archetypes and feats tp build different paths and powerz (eg Rage, Hunter, Monk) and even Cleric is really a fighter with Divine Powerz (make Heal a skill)
Magic User - Druids and Wizards and Warlocks are just different magic traditions
What? In genre? The Fighter certainly does.The core four at there because they cover the most common archetypes.
Well, were needed. Starting in 3.0, at least in concept, you were meant to be able to swap out a Druid for a cleric or Barbarian for a fighter or the like.Regardless if you want to play them, they're needed. Actually, "cleric" can be any healer type - it's D&D that codified that to religion.
They always do. But, aside from the Fighter's perennial popularity, only because they're D&D institutions.It's no surprise the big 4 are leading.
Understandable, actually, it was /slightly/ innovative.nteresting that in a different recent thread people said they felt the Warlock was one of the best designed 5e classes, but here it's one of the least required if forced to chop.
If you really want to be minimal, it'd be by what 4e labeled "source." You wouldn't need both the Fighter & Rogue. You might add the Psion.If you want to be minimal, it's the Big 4.
Yep. A mix of traditionalism/familiarity, and some folks preferring the most basic, “low flavor” options over the more specialized “heavy specific flavor” options, means this will always be the case. Still, I’ll give it to 5e, the fighter and rogue are actually pretty good in this edition, and I can imagine playing a wizard or cleric at some point.
I’d be down to fold the Cleric into the sorcerer, but none of the rest.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.
The Druid and Bard seemed to do well this edition - the Druid's definitely my favorite class, again, this ed, for the first time in a long time.Still, I’ll give it to 5e, the fighter and rogue are actually pretty good in this edition, and I can imagine playing a wizard or cleric at some point.
Interesting... very interesting....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?
Oh, you're getting close... so close! MWAHAHAHA!Skill monkey, combat monkey, spell monkey.
Works for me.
Unfamiliar with the system, but possibly. Basically you'd have 4 classes (warrior, specialist, priest, mage), 12+ subclasses (the classes), then themes (sub-classes). All classes would have similar base abilities, with sub-classes providing more detail, then themes even more detail. It could theoretically allow 2 different sub-classes to use the same theme, but I haven't looked into it enough to see if that's viable. It prevents some silly multi-class options, since you can't multi-class into the same type, but I'd probably include an option to take lower level sub-class features within your class (so a paladin could pick up a lower level rage ability instead of a higher level paladin ability). A "Base Game" would have the 4 classes, maybe 8 sub-classes (2 each), then 16 themes (2 each); this may seem like a lot but it's really only 3 choices.Like Shadow of a Demon Lord?