D&D 5E What Seven Classes Would You Keep? (and why!)
- Thread starter DND_Reborn
- Start date
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
You forgot the monk!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.
Lidgar
Gongfarmer
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
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
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
The Crimson Binome
Hero
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.
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
Hero
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.
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
Bacon Bits
Legend
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.
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.
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.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
