D&D 5E What Seven Classes Would You Keep? (and why!)

[FrogReaver]

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?

Thanks for your insight!

I understand that too. There's a number of 5e design decisions that make such multiclassed characters mechanically unsatisfying to me. To name a few:

-auto scaling cantrips
-class power gains are more tied to specific level breakpoints (example: level 5) than a gradual scaling of power by level.

There's definitely systems where multiclassing would feel adaquate to me to accomplish my concepts - but not 5e.

 

[Don Durito]

Poor sorcerer!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Other: Hero
Other: Mage
Other: Priest
Other: Shaman
Other: Psion
Other: Artificer

And, of course:
Other: Warlord

 

[Lidgar]

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.

 

[TwoSix]

Fighter (subclasses to support barbarian, paladin tropes)
Rogue (subclasses to support ranger tropes)
Monk/Pugilist
Other: Warlord
Other: Artificer (Int half-caster)
Druid (subclasses to support some wizard, cleric tropes)
Bard (subclasses to support some wizard, warlock tropes)

 

[Lanefan]

The 1e PHB (not including the Bard in the appendix) classes on your list: Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard.

Same here, except I voted "Other" instead of "Paladin".

I'd rather see a Knight or Cavalier class, that could include Paladin but be much broader in scope.

Beyond that - yeah, the core 6, on the condition that it's the 1e version of Ranger we get to keep and not the bastardized pathetic 5e wannabe version.

 

[TwoSix]

Other: Hero
Other: Mage
Other: Priest
Other: Shaman
Other: Psion
Other: Artificer

And, of course:
Other: Warlord

"Hero" being a generic action hero type, subsuming Fighter, Rogue, and portions of Ranger/Paladin?

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Hero" being a generic action hero type, subsuming Fighter, Rogue, and portions of Ranger/Paladin?

Yep - all things not supernatural....
...including Warlord, really, I just needed a 7th, and, y'know, Warlord

The others are also meant to stand on for a whole source. Artificer can skate closer to technology than arcana.

 

[Wiseblood]

I recently started a campaign and only allowed the following classes.

Bard
Druid
Fighter
Rogue
Warlock
Sorcerer

These classes I felt were the most likely to gain magic. Druids went underground (literally). Warlocks encountered or were enlisted by patrons. Bards snooped around and gathered all kinds of info. Sorcerers were born into it. Fighters and rogues are always going to be.

The premise being that a powerful overlord had eradicated the worship of deities and hunted down wizards, paladins, rangers and clerics. Monks had never emerged as a thing. Barbarians weren’t treated as a class just a culture.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, because Core 4.

Bard is safely in as both a popular option and traditionally a solid fifth member of the party that can veer toward any number of supporting roles.

Paladin also pretty safely in. Also very popular (or popular to hate). And iconic to D&D whatever else one may think of the class.

The last one, I waffled between Druid and Ranger, but voted Ranger since survey results indicate it tends to be more popular.