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
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.
 

dnd4vr

Hero
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. :unsure:
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen... Be nice plz n_n
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

Adventurer
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.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
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

Dusty Dragon
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! :p
 

Ogre Mage

Explorer
While it is no surprise that the "Core 4" of fighter, wizard, rogue and cleric top the list I note with interest with the "second tier" of classes which make the cut of seven --

Bard
Druid
Paladin

This is interesting as stories I have read suggest that the bard and druid are among the least played classes. The paladin is more played but some threads I've seen on this board suggest the class also has a large number of haters.

Of course, paladins, lore bards and moon druids are considered to be some of the strongest classes in 5E, so that might have something to do with their ranking.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I am 100% unwilling to play a "straight" bard. Absolutely not. Never.

Play a college of sword bard multiclassed into hexblade? Yes! Play a fighter with the entertainer background, or an arcane trickster with the same (a "bard")? Yes! But single class lore bard? blaaarg.

edit: a monk entertainer could be really cool. No need for the acrobat class, it's right here!
 

NotAYakk

Explorer
7 is 2^3-1. So 3 different categories either on or off.

Champion, Trickster, Sage

Warrior (100)
Ranger (110)
Rogue (010)
Sorcerer (011)
Wizard (001)
Paladin (101)
Druid (111)

Paladin kills the Cleric and takes her stuff.
Warrior kills the Barbarian and takes her stuff.
Rogue kills the Monk and takes her stuff.
Ranger kills the Bard and takes her stuff.
Sorcerer kills the Warlock and takes her stuff.

Wizard and Druid already have enough stuff.
 

dnd4vr

Hero
7 is 2^3-1. So 3 different categories either on or off.

Champion, Trickster, Sage

Warrior (100)
Ranger (110)
Rogue (010)
Sorcerer (011)
Wizard (001)
Paladin (101)
Druid (111)

Paladin kills the Cleric and takes her stuff.
Warrior kills the Barbarian and takes her stuff.
Rogue kills the Monk and takes her stuff.
Ranger kills the Bard and takes her stuff.
Sorcerer kills the Warlock and takes her stuff.

Wizard and Druid already have enough stuff.
Ah, you figured it out! Congrats! :D

Yes, seven is the magic number but more based on the three pillars of D&D:

Combat
Exploration
Social
Combat-Exploration
Combat-Social
Exploration-Social
Combat-Exploration-Social

Seven combinations. Seven classes.

Very, very nice! :)
 

Eric V

Adventurer
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.
This was almost exactly my thinking as well.
 

Prakriti

Hi, I'm a Mindflayer, but don't let that worry you
I hate that Warlock and Sorcerer are even part of the game. Not only would I remove them, I would remove them with a vengeance.
 

Don Durito

Explorer
I believe at some point in 3E's development there was some thought about making Paladin and Ranger prestige classes but that ultimately they chickened out.

(Yes I know they did this later in Unearthed Arcana - I mean from the beginning.)
 
Last edited:

Arnwolf666

Adventurer
I hate that Warlock and Sorcerer are even part of the game. Not only would I remove them, I would remove them with a vengeance.
I Like the concept of the warlock. But they might as well rename it the eldritch blaster. If the powers were more along the lines of the pact and who the pact is with, then I could potentially like it. Great way to redo the cleric class if it wasn’t eldritch blast based.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
The Psion Mystic can swallow the Sorcerer, especially as aspects of Psychokinesis and Psychometabolism.

The Cleric can swallow the Warlock, whether blasting Radiance or Force (or other damage type), and forming a spiritual community, whether exoteric or esoteric.

The Druid can swallow the Barbarian.

The Paladin can swallow the Eldritch Knight and the Ranger, and other warrior half-casters.
 

Advertisement

Top