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

Hriston

Adventurer
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. :)
You forgot the monk!
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Alas, only 7 were allowed, and the Monk failed his save.

Poor 2d4 monk!
Well, I mean technically if you're going by the 1e PHB, then:

Cleric, Fighter, Thief (Rogue), Magic User (Wizard), and Monk are all core classes.

Those other things are just detritus, subclasses, and, even worse? Paladins.
 

Tonguez

Adventurer
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
 

Saelorn

Adventurer
Druids and warlocks are variant clerics with unjustifiably distinct mechanics. They have no good reason to exist.

I would want to keep the bard, since they are narratively distinct from the other classes, but their mechanics in this edition are really bad. If that's all they're bringing to the table, then you could cover them by playing a wizard and giving them the appropriate background.

While paladin and ranger could theoretically be covered by multiclassing a fighter with a cleric, we're still preserving the core of 5E in this assumption, which means multiclassing can't be assumed. Paladin and ranger are in.
 
Last edited:

Esker

Abventuree
I think I'd have slightly different lists depending on whether I were listing classes based on archetypes or based on interesting distinct sets of mechanics in 5e specifically.

For archetypes, I'd go with:

Fighter (subsumes Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, and I guess Monk)
Rogue
Cleric (subsumes Druid and Warlock, the latter becomes WIS-based like every other cleric)
Wizard
Bard/Sorcerer blend (bards make more sense fluff-wise as a flavor of sorcerer, IMO: innate magical ability realized through force of personality)

that's only five, but I can't really pick out one of the others above in terms of fluff. But it gives one fighting-focused class, one mundane skill-focused class, one INT-focused caster, one WIS-focused caster, and one CHA-focused caster.

For mechanical chassis, I'd go with:

Fighter (subsumes Ranger, Barbarian, Monk)
Rogue
Cleric (subsumes Druid)
Wizard (subsumes sorcerer: subclasses would grant either additional spells or metamagic, which becomes INT-based)
Bard
Warlock (because passive magical powers and short rest spell slots is mechanically distinctive)
Paladin (mechanically distinct from Fighter in its burst focus; but I'd remove spells and replace them with abilities that are based on WIS rather than CHA)

The ones I actually voted for are the second list.
 

BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
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
Skill monkey, combat monkey, spell monkey.

Works for me.
 

Bacon Bits

Adventurer
I'd rather start with classes I'd straight-up drop:

1. Monk. The flavor of this class has always been mismatched. It dates back to the late 70s and early 80s, when Kung Fu and Bruce Lee were very popular. The only other setting I'm aware of that consistently includes this class is the Dragon Quest series, which calls them "Fighters" (while calling fighters "Soldiers").

2. Sorcerer. This class only exists because 3e didn't go all in on spontaneous casting (granted, partially because the magic system was way better than the martial system). At this point the only thing it really does uniquely is flavor. That could be rolled into a Wizard subclass, including the difference in magic source (learned vs inherent).

3. Warlock. Again, a class that was created to introduce new mechanics. The flavor of the class is deep, but just because you have flavor doesn't mean you have to have unique mechanics behind them. There's no reason for this to exist anymore; it could be a subclass of Wizard.

So that leaves us with nine.

Then it gets a bit difficult.

1. Ranger vs Barbarian. These two classes, realistically, share very, very similar design space. It overlaps so heavily, and Ranger's role as a pure hunter, woodsman, and tamer of the wilds is so close to politically incorrect compared to the "noble savage" Barbarian or Norseman that I'm inclined to keep the Barbarian, but I tend to favor game history. Quite honestly, they could be the same class just with different subclasses: One that grants spells and exploration/hunting, and the other that grants rage and durability. However, Ranger is more iconic to D&D, so I would favor that.

So we're at 8. I would prefer to stop here. I think Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are and always will be the core 4 classes. I think their existence is immutable at this point. That leaves us with:

2. Bard vs Druid vs Paladin. These are all hybrid classes. Bard is a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard with a music them. Druid is a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard with shapeshifting and animal theme, and Paladin is a Fighter/Cleric.

I think holy knights are iconic to the fantasy genre. Most fantasy settings have a holy knight class of some sort. I think Paladins, partially due to their alignment controversies, have become perhaps the fifth most iconic class in the game. I don't think they can be dropped.

Druid's ability set is somewhat unique, even if it is a blend. Adding natural deities not related to civilization adds a lot to the game. I also think that wild shape brings something unique to the game.

Bard, unfortunately, has to take the hit here to get to 7. Even though music does bring a lot, I think it's overall less valuable than what Druid, Paladin, and Ranger bring, though I think it's close.

That said, I think it's really close between Bard and Druid. I'd rank the classes in terms of importance to the game -- with ties -- like this:

1. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard.
2. Paladin, Ranger.
3. Barbarian, Bard, Druid.
4. Monk, Warlock.
5. Artifacer, Assassin, Illusionist, Sorcerer.
6. Psionicist, Swordmage, Warlord.
7. Everything else.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The core four at there because they cover the most common archetypes. 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.

It's no surprise the big 4 are leading. But there's very distinct tiers after that which people feel are needed in the game.

At the time I'm writing this, you have:
The Big 4
Druid & Bard
Paladin
Ranger
Warlock, Monk, Barbarian

(Each grouping is within 5% of the others in that group, with at least a 5% gap between and usually more.)

Interesting 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. Monk and Barbarian don't even have that.

If you want to be minimal, it's the Big 4. If you're going to have any mroe than that, the most wanted classes to play after that are Druid and Bard. Those six are the only ones that over half the people want, with Paladin in the next tier just missing the cut-off with 49% at time of writing.
 
The core four at there because they cover the most common archetypes.
What? In genre? The Fighter certainly does.
The Rogue - much expanded from the Thief - arguably does, though in part by overlapping with the fighter.
The Wizard... not really that common in genre, as the hero, or even as the mentor traveling with the heroes at least some of the time, like Gandalf...
The Cleric? Not hardly at all, especially the narrow, weirdly-hybridized Xtian/Pagan D&D take.

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.
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.

It's no surprise the big 4 are leading.
They always do. But, aside from the Fighter's perennial popularity, only because they're D&D institutions.

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.
Understandable, actually, it was /slightly/ innovative.

If you want to be minimal, it's the Big 4.
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.
 

Draegn

Explorer
I have four. Divine, Arcane, Mundane and Nonpareil (which is a combination of the first three) Together these DAMN heroes just ruin a nice dragon's day.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Quick visual.

View attachment 114975

Classic 4 dominate as expected.
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.
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.
I’d be down to fold the Cleric into the sorcerer, but none of the rest.
 
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.
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.
The fighter - after the elegance of the 3.x fighter design, and the agency & genre-fidelity/role-support of the 4e Fighter & Warlord - I find really quite disappointing.
 

Slit518

Explorer
Warrior - you can find warriors in every culture.
Priest - you can find different kinds of priests throughout the world.
Thief - they like to steal; they may also like to sneak & hide.
Magic Caster - tales of people with the ability to cast magic are rife through many cultures.
 

dnd4vr

Keeper of the Seven Keys
Thanks to everyone for contributing! :)

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?
Interesting... very interesting....

Skill monkey, combat monkey, spell monkey.

Works for me.
Oh, you're getting close... so close! MWAHAHAHA! :devilish:
 
Like Shadow of a Demon Lord?
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.
 

Advertisement

Top