D&D 5E (2014) What Seven Classes Would You Keep? (and why!)

[Horwath]

One option would be 3 classes

Warrior
Expert
Mage

with bunch of subclasses,

or, 5 classes, based on spell aptitude;

full caster, spell levels 1-10, 10th level spells at 19th level
2/3 caster(3.5e bard). spell levels 1-7, 7th level at 19th level
1/2 caster, spell levels 1-5, 5th level spells at 17th level
1/3 caster, spell levels 1-4, 4th level spells at 19th level
non-spellcaster.

 

[Shiroiken]

This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.

 

[Don Durito]

This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.

Like Shadow of a Demon Lord?

 

[Enrico Poli1]

I'll explain the classes that need improvement:

Barbarian is very good, but needs more attack power. It is disappointing that the Fighter is best at Dmg and Barbarian is best at tanking.

Druid: good overall, but (Moon) spikes at LVL 2, 20 and 20. Uneven.

Monk, Ranger, Sorcerer are subpar compared to other classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd keep the main four, not because they are traditional but because they all represent distinct and useful archetypes. The least useful is Cleric, being a character that barely exists outside of D&D-influenced fantasy. Still that is a lot of fantasy nowadays.

Then I'd keep Bard, Warlock and Druid, because they are all also distinct and useful archetypes which have grown to have strong identities (stronger than Cleric I'd argue, in some ways).

Rangers have never had a solid identity and can be easily done by picking specific skills as a Fighter, or multiclassing, or as a Fighter subclass. I love Paladins but they could easily be a Divine Fighter subclass without losing flavour (they might lose some cool mechanics of course). Barbarians are even more indistinct than Rangers and again a Fighter subclass which had unarmoured combat and Rage would do the trick. Hell maybe even lose Rage - Barbarian and Berserker seem like different things to me. Sorcerer is a solution in search of a problem, and could be rolled into Warlocks in many cases. Metamagic is weird and doesn't sit well with post-3E D&D. I could see dropping the Metamagic angle and making Sorcerers and Psions a single class with a spell point mechanic, which would fit well with a lot of literary fantasy characters. Monks are distinct but always a weird fit and seem like they might be an option for another class (perhaps a generalised Mystic?) than a whole thing.

Of course, dropping nothing is my preference. More classes are better than fewer with D&D-style mechanics, but those are what I'd pick.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IME multiclassing almost always leads to an unsatisfying kludge character that kinda fulfills the desired concept on paper, but not very well in practice.

3E/5E style MC, which is more similar to 2E dual-classing, absolutely does. 2E-style MC did not, in my experience. Also Ranger is best replicated by a special subclass for Fighter or by a Fighter/Rogue. Druid doesn't need to get involved.

 

[JeffB]

I get by fine with the classic 4. If we are playing 4e or 13A, don't even need the Cleric.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is oddly something I had been thinking about recently. If I were to design a new edition, I was thinking I'd roll many of the classes back into the core 4, and then have them differentiate at level 1 with a sub-class, then again later into themes (what we now call sub-classes). There would be a few that wouldn't quite fit this way (especially if they make a psion), but it would simplify the system.

I think you can resolve the Psion issue by making a spell point-based caster be the default caster rather than a Vancian one and have a Vancian option be a subclass. Then you have a versatile magic user base class. At the same time I'd make Cleric be the support class rather than the Divine class, and other support classes could come out of that, whereas offensive Clerics could roll into magic user subclasses and Paladins etc into Fighter subclasses. I'd rename base classes to a more 2E scheme in that case (ie Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage). I guess 2E show this is not entirely original thinking!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Given we were given more choices than half of the options available, its probably easier to talk about the classes I wouldn't include.
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Monk are all just thematic variations on Fighter, with added western/eastern mysticism or just trying to create a specific character from a book. - Making them all separate dilutes the potential capabilities of the fighter class. Pare down the base class a bit, and have subclasses or other in-class choices be more powerful.

Sorceror is a little too close to Wizard: Remove the spellbook, and you have the sorceror. (Warlock I kept because its actual mechanics are distinct enough to be a separate class, even though you could probably cover a lot of the came concepts.)

Druid's niche is pretty close to cleric. A subclass of cleric with some equipment and spell restrictions, and access to more shapechanging spells would work.

Bard I kept, although I would change it so that Warlords and other support characters would fit just as well.

 

[jasper]

No druids because I hate nature boys and no more studded leather gripes.
No monks because Kung Fu is Phooney unless it Hong Kong or Jackie Chan.
Paladins yes because everyone hates thems.
No Token rangers.
Sorcerer and warlocks are just no class wizards. Harry said so.