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

[steeldragons]

Big 4: Cleric, Fighter, Thief[Rouge], MU/Mage[Wizard]

Leaves us with 3...

Any arcane spell-user can be fluffed out of a Wizard character, just squint and reskin for a warlock, sorcerer, witch, specialist mages, what have you. So we'll leave that be.

Barbarian -special flavor of a warrior.
Druid -special flavor of a cleric.
Ranger -special flavor of a rogue and/or another slice of warrior.

Done.

 

[CleverNickName]

I agree with several others in this thread: 7 classes are still too many.

Barbarian - a subclass* of Fighter
Bard - a subclass* of Rogue
Cleric
Druid - A subclass* of Cleric
Fighter
Monk - a subclass* of Fighter
Paladin - a subclass* of Cleric or Fighter
Ranger - a subclass* of Fighter or Rogue
Rogue
Sorcerer - a subclass* of Wizard
Warlock - a subclass* of Wizard
Wizard

*or kit, or other 1st-level option

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Salthorae]

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.

This is definitely true. In 3.x there is no way that Bard would have garnered 25% of the vote in a "keep" thread.

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.)

this was one of my favorite things from UA and went into my 3.5 games almost immediately.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Elf
Dwarf
Gnome
Priest
Rogue
Warrior
Wizard

 

[Remathilis]

Elf
Dwarf
Gnome
Priest
Rogue
Warrior
Wizard

Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling is really the only acceptable answer.

 

[Arnwolf666]

And Cleric is an anagram of Circle!

Which makes cleric a Druid and therefore redundant as a class. You are a genius.

 

[wizard71]

I would ditch the rogue. The logic leaps of how a dagger in a rogue’s hand is more effective than a fighter’s greatsword attacks are too much. Skills have been so devalued that the rogue need not exist.
I would keep fighter & barbarian because they are iconic. Sorcerers , wizards, bards., clerics and druids bring much fun and flexibility to the table.
Monks need multiple high stats to be effective and 5E does not lend itself to high stats. Paladins are overpowered and rangers are underpowered. Warlocks have no real meaning for the pacts and are really just eldritch blast auto turrets.

 

[Smythe the Bard]

arise, arise thread! 6 is really easy: Figher, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard and Monk, its that seventh which is tricky. Too many classes are really just sub classes of the core; Sorcerers, Warlocks, are subclasses of Wizard. Heck throw in Cleric & Druid, as they are all magic users anyway. Magic is Magic, its the source that is fluff. Rangers & Paladins are just a combo of a Fighter&Caster. Bards should be 1/2 casters/skill monkey/fighers as they are the Jack of all trades, master of none. Monks are quasi caster in a way with Ki, so them and Monks are the outliers. That just leaves the one; which in thought could have been the Warlock.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I killed the fighter, barbarian, cleric, monk and wizard to keep the bard, ranger, druid, paladin, rogue, sorcerer and warlock.

Bard, ranger and rogue serve as the jack of all trades classes, with bard leaning slightly more into the magic side of things, ranger the martial side and rogue the skills.

Paladin and ranger stand as the front line big hitters of the set, druid with it’s wildshape and absorbing some barbarian rage tricks also standing up front as a tank and combatant when it isn’t in the back lines with the sorcerer and the warlock casting: these two arcane casters provide two very different but very interesting styles of play with their respective mechanics letting you customise your casting experience with them in a way other casters don’t give.