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

Which of these should be core D&D classes?

  • Fighter

    Votes: 152 90.5%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 137 81.5%
  • Thief

    Votes: 139 82.7%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 147 87.5%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 77 45.8%
  • Bard

    Votes: 102 60.7%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 86 51.2%
  • Druid

    Votes: 100 59.5%
  • Monk

    Votes: 74 44.0%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 67 39.9%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 69 41.1%
  • Alchemist

    Votes: 12 7.1%
  • Artificer

    Votes: 35 20.8%
  • Necromancer

    Votes: 11 6.5%
  • Ninja

    Votes: 5 3.0%
  • Samurai

    Votes: 3 1.8%
  • Priest

    Votes: 16 9.5%
  • Witch

    Votes: 15 8.9%
  • Summoner

    Votes: 17 10.1%
  • Psionicist

    Votes: 35 20.8%
  • Gish/Spellblade/Elritch Knight

    Votes: 35 20.8%
  • Scout/Hunter (non magical Ranger)

    Votes: 21 12.5%
  • Commander/Warlord

    Votes: 41 24.4%
  • Elementalist

    Votes: 5 3.0%
  • Illusionist

    Votes: 13 7.7%
  • Assassin

    Votes: 10 6.0%
  • Wild Mage

    Votes: 5 3.0%
  • Swashbuckler (dex fighter)

    Votes: 17 10.1%
  • Archer

    Votes: 8 4.8%
  • Inquisitor/Witch Hunter

    Votes: 10 6.0%
  • Detective

    Votes: 7 4.2%
  • Vigilante

    Votes: 4 2.4%
  • Other I Forgot/Didn't Think Of

    Votes: 23 13.7%

Either a tiny handful of classes, or dozens of them, depending on how much conceptual space each occupies.

Ideally, we'd have a small handful of classes and handle the specialized concepts through subclasses. There would be one arcane caster class, one divine caster class, one martial class and one skill-monkey class, and they'd all be specialized from there. Much easier for balance in the long run that way, but I think a lot of players would be very unhappy with being a "mage" and specializing into "sorcerer" or "wizard" or "warlock," rather than those being base classes.

I think I may be describing how classes work in 13th Age or Shadow of the Demon Lord or something. I know someone already has this system in play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think this is it for me, though I could fill those last 2 slots easily with a few options I have in mind.

Adding the Warlord/Gish/Psion as proper level 1 options.

Melee/Non-CasterHybridCaster
FighterGishWizard
RogueArtificerBard
WarlordPaladinCleric
MonkWarlockPsion
BarbarianRangerDruid
XXSorcerer
 

If I were to ever create my own D&D Heartbreaker, I would go with six classes, one for each ability score: Fighter (Str), Thief (Dex), Ranger (Con), Wizard (Int), Priest (Wis) and Commander (Cha). I would use talent trees feats or whatever to differentiate characters. I would absolutely NOT do sub classes. I would rather make a game with 50 core clases than use subclasses.
I want 50 core classes and as many subs as I can get. Also, prestige classes too.
 


I want 50 core classes and as many subs as I can get. Also, prestige classes too.
I think Prestige classes deserve a 5E reboot. They fill a particular niche that core and subclasses don't. I especially like in-fiction Prestige classes that represent joining a special secret order or mystery cult, or learning long lost lore, or undergoing some transformative experience.
 





What's the difference between "Cleric" and "Priest"?

Also, my "other" votes are for

a) some sort of Paladin or War Cleric
b) some sort of Knight or Cavalier

Neither option appears in the poll.

I'm guessing sonething like 2E.

A priest could lean more towards magic and lack the armor of a cleric.
 

Remove ads

Top