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

[CreamCloud0]

i think it's interesting how alot of people chose to keep the core classes as a basis for splitting off specialised subclasses i instead dropped three of the core four (fighter, wizard, cleric) prefering the hybrid classes as the basis for that same method of specialisation, like i'd rather a paladin specialise into fighter and cleric subclasses than the other way around, are they being favoured for being the core four i wonder.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Interesting.

My original answer was:

Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard

Revisiting the topic now, I've changed by answer to:

Bard
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard

Dropping Cleric for Bard. I just don't think Clerics have very interesting stories. I'd rather fold them into Paladin. That said, I think I could be convinced to drop Fighter for Artificer. Fighter and Cleric are simply too generic. They don't feel like they contribute anything really unique to the game anymore.

I think Wizard is too generic, too, but I don't think Sorcerer or Warlock improve on it. Warlock has fantastic flavor that the mechanics just don't back up, while Sorcerer... just so much feels like a bad Wizard. It looks like OneDND might correct that, but I'm not sure I really care.

 

[Laurefindel]

Hummm. Let’s see…

Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian

(because spell-less is cool)

Ranger
Paladin
Bard (make it half-caster)

Wizard
(fold warlock, sorcerer, even druid archetypes into that class)

Cleric-lite can exist through Paladin.

 

[Smythe the Bard]

My picks are:
Face

So.... (may need a little assistance here)
Hannibal = Rogue/Mastermind
Face = Bard/Collage of Glam (?)
B.A. = Barbarian/Path of Berserker (?)
Howlin Mad Murdock.... uh

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I voted
bard
cleric
fighter
rogue
sorcererer
warlock
(other)warlod

but I think I would remove and rearrange a bit with some thought

Fighter
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
are all my for sure...

but I think Warlord, Swordmage, Paliden and Artificer might be better... but for Artificer I want more a PF1 Alchmist feel for at least a subclass

 

[see]

Alchemist
Bard (but as a half caster)
Cleric (druid as a subclass with non-combat wildshape as its Channel Divinity option)
Fighter (with barbarian, paladin and ranger among its subclasses).
Rogue (ninja-monks go here)
Warlock (but reworked to support an easy "Champion"-equivalent 'caster' subclass)
Wizard

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it's purely "what classes do you like more conceptually," then in alphabetical order (which is what I voted)

Bard
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord

Other than the Fighter, these are classes that have tons of built-in story potential--which you don't have to use, but can be really cool when you are able to use it. It's sad to have to drop the Druid, because I do like it conceptually too, but not enough to bump off any of the others on this list.

Cleric and Wizard are out for being too generic, and I've just...never really cared about playing Barbarian. That plus the unfortunate implications of the class name is enough for me to leave it out. Ranger tends toward at least fraught design--it's often either OP or (more commonly) much too weak, so that's dropped more out of practicality than any positive or negative feeling. And Rogue just isn't the kind of character I'm interested in playing.

I added Warlord because Warlord is an awesome class that deserves the breathing room to actually show what it can do.

If instead we're talking about what I think would make the most "historical" sense, we end up with something like...

Bard
Cleric (absorbs Druid)
Fighter (absorbs Barbarian and Paladin)
Rogue (absorbs Monk and Ranger)
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

That gives something I think would be the least contentious (but still very contentious) while achieving the goal of shortening the list.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Necro thread nvm

 

[SpaceOtter]

I think you only need 3:

Fighter (reskinned as ranger, gladiator, barbarian, etc.)
Spellcaster (reskinned as sorcerer, wizard, warlock, etc.)
Fighter-Spellcaster (reskinned as cleric, druid, paladin, spellsword, etc.)

Everything else can be a function of skill choices, subclasses, and weapon/armour choices.

The separation of divine/arcane magic can be binned; allow spell lists grouped by theme instead.

 

[M_Natas]

I'm dropping:

• Bard (it's just a Wizard who sings)
• Warlock (it's either a cleric who has an unusual deity or is a wizard who gained their knowledge from an unusual place)
• Paladin (it is just a fighter who dipped into cleric)
• Barbarian: an angry fighter
• Druid: a wood/hippie wizard
• Monk: it's just an unarmed fighter

That leaves me with what?

• Cleric
• Fighter
• Ranger
• Rogue
• Sorcerer
• Wizard

Let's have first a look at the core magical classes.

A Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Wizard. I think that is a good division. It divides the magic user classes by source of magic:

• Clerics gain their power trough an external powerful beings like a god, devil, Fey, the spirit of their ancestors ... they channel the power of somebody or something else and can loose access to it.
• Wizards gain their power trough knowledge. They learn stuff and use that. The source of knowledge can differ but except for brain damage/amnesia spells or similiar effects, they can't loose access to the knowledge. That could be our regular scholars wizard, witches, druids and everybody who gains knowledge.
• sorcerers gain their powers trough something that bestows them with intuitive magic. They didn't learn it, they don't channel the power of somebody else. The power comes from within. They only have to learn to controll it. This is your typical 5e sorcerer, but could also be a psionic.

This are the core magical classes.

Than we have the martial class.

The Fighter. Everything that is good at fighting is a fighter. Only the style differs. Monk, Barbarian, Paladin? All just subclasses of the Fighter.

Then we have specialist.

Ranger and Rogue.
And actually, now that I think about it, let's cancel them too and replace them with ...

The Talker
The Explorer
The Tool Expert

The Talker is like the face of the party. They are good at convincing and deceiving people, at Reading people. They are at home at parties, they mingle with the crowds.

The explorer is good at exploring stuff. Be it the wilderness, Dungeons or the city. They rarely get lost and if they do, they get excited about it.

The tool expert gained a lot of knowledge with the usage of specific tools. He could be thieve who is proficient with Thieves tools, a Smith who makes the best weapons ect.pp


And now that I think about it, I see the big problem, also with 5e.
Some classes are organised by the source of the power (wizard, warlock, cleric, to a lesser extent monk) and some classes are organised by party role (ranger, Rogue, to some extent cleric) and some are organised by style (Barbarian, Monk, paladin).

Which are wildy different organisational schemes.

Let's say we want to have one primary organisational structure. What would it look like if we organise the classes by party role?

We would have

• Fighter
• Support
• Healer
• Explorer
• Talker

But that is ... we would have to define all party roles and that would really constrict, what a character can do. It feels a little like 4e again, to gamey, to much like a computer game with tanks and support and stuff. It would also mean that the Fighter is the main class and a Wizards who specialises in battle magic (eg Fireball) would be a subclass of a Fighter, while a Wizards who specialises in support would be a subclass of support. That doesn't feel right.

So back to square one. So maybe the source of their abilities?

That works well for magic users. Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer are the bases foe the different sources of magic.

With Martials, how could we separate that? We could do that by Formal Training and Nonformal Training.

So we would have something like:

• the Thug (learned how to fight by surviving in the streets - could be a replacement for the rogue)
• the Soldier (learned how to fight in an institution that trains a lot of people, that could encompass the Fighter and also the Monk)
• the apprentice (learned how to fight from one other person, like a squire to a Knight, could replace a paladin, could be named Knight-Class, also maybe the barbarian)
• the wildling (had to learn how to survive in the wilderness, could be the ranger class)

Thug and Wildling could be put in the "expert" category.

So, that works out.

My new 7 classes are:

Wizard
Sorcerer
Cleric
Thug
Wildling
Soldier
Aprrentice