D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?

[Reynard]

No way, it's very much a class.

I mean, the very literary basis wasn't. He started life as a thief and became a king. He was mostly a warrior with an animal cunning and a feral charm. Sounds a lot more like a "fighter" with a highly customizable skill set to me.

 

[Scribe]

I mean, the very literary basis wasn't. He started life as a thief and became a king. He was mostly a warrior with an animal cunning and a feral charm. Sounds a lot more like a "fighter" with a highly customizable skill set to me.

Right, how long ago?

The 5e D&D Barbarian, is its own thing.

 

[J-H]

Good poll.
I am fine with making Ranger a fighter subclass.
I could see completely throwing out Druid, and instead creating a couple of Druid-type Warlock patrons that replicate the same general ability set. This would also expand possible invocations to include different types of shapeshiftings, making Warlocks the king of "build a bear" classes.

 

[Lanefan]

Barbarian is a background or heritage, not a class.

And as a heritage (probably toned down some from what the current class gives you) could then be applied to any character.

 

[Mecheon]

Barbarian is a background or heritage, not a class. There are tons of "battle madness" type tropes throughout the world and inspirational materials that we could just make it a path or talent tree or whatever without any reference to "civilization."

It has been a class in this game longer than I've been alive. It is clearly something that sticks with people and, just making it a path or talent means your . We're back to 3E where you get your particular character concept you've got to pick up all sorts of pointless irrelevant stuff that doesn't even matter, or even worse, original Bards where just to be a person going around and playing music, you've got to go deep into fighter and rogue. Why should your barbarian be shackled down by half the junk in Fighter that's useless to you? Its half the reason we have the sorcerer and warlock, because, why should your spellcaster getting power from another source have to keep a spellbook around?

Making it a background or talent tree dilutes the differences its had in-game since then and makes that you don't get to play your concept to the fullest. "Oh sorry you've done this neat concept buuuut you're actually a fighter and it turns out the best way to play that is full plate armor and a bow so, sorry about wanting to being an armor-less battle-axe swinging viking but that is just inefficient and you'd be doing more by throwing darts" isn't a fun thing for anyone to hear.

Splitting these off into individual things to better serve archetypes, to not weigh them down with irrelevant and unrequired parts of other class, helps that Class Fantasy come to be when someone's playing something

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would generally agree with that. If a game has a lot of specific classes, I think they should be more strictly diegetic and less reskinnable. (Although I think my reasoning there is backwards; I'd say that IF a game is going to feature strongly diegetic classes, THEN there should be a lot of them to make them specific to the setting.)

I think where D&D has gone wrong over time is that it's bound by tradition to include nondiegetic classes like Fighter and Rogue, which including more and more strongly diegetic classes like Druids and Paladins.

Either have a few generic, reskinnable, strongly moddable classes, or have a lot of diegetic, specific classes; don't have both in the same system.

The game is better for having both.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, the very literary basis wasn't. He started life as a thief and became a king. He was mostly a warrior with an animal cunning and a feral charm. Sounds a lot more like a "fighter" with a highly customizable skill set to me.

The 5e Barbarian has very nearly nothing to do with Conan.

They’re more connected to Berserkers and the stories about them, as well as to the idea of a primal warrior who is from the wilds than to a character they haven’t tried to model in quite a while.

 

[Aldarc]

I think having each figthing style be its own class could be cool.

Or at least:

• Defender (knight, swordmage, spear marshal, duelist)
• Archer (avalanche hurler, peerless archer, zen archery)
• Slayer (tempest, juggernaut)

Your post reminds me of something. I remember being impressed many years ago with Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. He designed some of the classes around common playstyles. So for example, he created the Warmain for those who want to be the heavily-armored warrior and the Unfettered who wanted to be the lightly-armored fighter/swashbuckler. It was far from perfect in its design, but an approach with that sort of awareness has been fairly influential on me. (Along with 4e roles.)

But if you want each fighting style to be its own class, I would take a look at 4e D&D. Want to play a martial archer? Pick the Ranger. Want to play a martial defender? Pick a Fighter. Want to play a martial slayer? Pick the Rogue. Want to play a martial support class? Pick the Warlord.

I would generally agree with that. If a game has a lot of specific classes, I think they should be more strictly diegetic and less reskinnable. (Although I think my reasoning there is backwards; I'd say that IF a game is going to feature strongly diegetic classes, THEN there should be a lot of them to make them specific to the setting.)

I think where D&D has gone wrong over time is that it's bound by tradition to include nondiegetic classes like Fighter and Rogue, which including more and more strongly diegetic classes like Druids and Paladins.

Either have a few generic, reskinnable, strongly moddable classes, or have a lot of diegetic, specific classes; don't have both in the same system.

That's five drinks @Reynard.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Barbarian is a background or heritage, not a class. There are tons of "battle madness" type tropes throughout the world and inspirational materials that we could just make it a path or talent tree or whatever without any reference to "civilization."

'Barbarian' I could see the argument for being a background rather than a class.

But 'Berserker' is absolutely a class, and is probably a better name for it than 'Barbarian'. They were a very specialised group of warriors used by the tribes which fought for and against the Roman Empire. (Sometimes referred to under different names with variations depending on the culture).

 

[Reynard]

'Barbarian' I could see the argument for being a background rather than a class.

But 'Berserker' is absolutely a class, and is probably a better name for it than 'Barbarian'. They were a very specialised group of warriors used by the tribes which fought for and against the Roman Empire. (Sometimes referred to under different names with variations depending on the culture).

I prefer a more ala carte approach to it,is all. I think it works better if you can build a mounted knight and a berserker off the same class foundation by choosing the appropriate talents/feats/whatever, because if you can do that it means you can built whatever you want. By having a small number of broad base classes and a wide range of options within those, players can customize their character to what they really want. Modular is better.

Someone upthread asked why I dislike subclasses so much, and it is because subclasses give the illusion of customization without actually providing it. You are just delaying the point you are locked in to someone else's character concept.