Aldarc
Legend
The former is an idiomatic archetype that mostly only exists in D&D and the latter is an archetype that is more widespread in culture and video games.
D&D General Which of these should be core classes for D&D?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Corinnguard
Hero
Kobold Press had a Priest class that made me think of them as the true divine equivalent of a Wizard (because of their lack of an armor proficiency and full spellcasting capability).
CreamCloud0
Hero
Phb 13 - wizard, + psion, swordmage, summoner, warlord, other
I picked other instead of wizard because I wouldn’t want it in its current incarnation, I’d want it stripped of most of its damage spells to focus on control, de/buffs and out of combat utility, it’s still fundamentally built the same way but with a significant reworking of its spell list.
I picked other instead of wizard because I wouldn’t want it in its current incarnation, I’d want it stripped of most of its damage spells to focus on control, de/buffs and out of combat utility, it’s still fundamentally built the same way but with a significant reworking of its spell list.
Aldarc
Legend
I would love to be in the hypothetical room with you and wizard players when you take away the wizard's Fireball spell.
Yora
Legend
I'm conservative with these things, so I am going with the AD&D 2nd edition classes.
Fighter, thief, cleric, wizard, druid, and bard.
Not Paladin, because it's such a weird and specific class that doesn't work together with many character concepts.
And not ranger, because it's a class that after more than 45 years still has not figured out a niche to occupy that isn't done more effectively by a fighter/thief who trains wilderness skills.
Fighter, thief, cleric, wizard, druid, and bard.
Not Paladin, because it's such a weird and specific class that doesn't work together with many character concepts.
And not ranger, because it's a class that after more than 45 years still has not figured out a niche to occupy that isn't done more effectively by a fighter/thief who trains wilderness skills.
CreamCloud0
Hero
well then they can deal, they'll still have a few essentials like magic missile and chromatic orb but if you were in my 'what are THE wizard spells' thread you'll know how much i think that fireball is basically the antithesis of the kind of magical precision and finesse that should be the wizard's wheelhouse, sorcerer will still exist now serving as the primary blaster class and i'm sure a couple of other casters will have it one way or another like fiend warlock, lore bard or light cleric.
aco175
Legend
I just picked the base 4 (fighter, wizard, cleric and thief). I would like more if there are no sub-classes or multiclassing. I would also be more inclined to have subclasses be another class so that a fighter can subclass in wizard or keep being a fighter/fighter instead of fighter/wizard. The wizard/fighter would be different enough than the fighter/wizard.
jgsugden
Legend
If I were designing the next edition, I would:
1.) Combine the Barbarian and Fighter. There is not enough distinction between the core of the two classes. Adding the barbarian unarmored defense and rage at 3rd level would also limit the 'dip it to win it' mentality.
2.) Add Artificer and Psion to the core classes. These each fill roles that are not addressed by existing classes (when you execute them well). My versions would be more aligned to the archetypes than we've seen in recent editions. A Psion would not, for example, use spells like a cleric, druid, bard or arcane spellcaster. Nor would Artificers - who would use steampunk science to build contraptions that function like magic items, but do not rely upon magic.
3.) Combine the Ranger and Rogue. I believe we lose a little bit of the core concept of these classes when we try to differentiate them - so don't. Make a single stealthy class that deals extra damage through hitting the sweet spot - but use subclasses to take them the route of the natural spellcaster, the thief, or the beastmaster. I would also roll the concept of the 4E Avenger in here as well as a sublass option.
4.) Combine the Cleric and Paladin. There are too many times when we artifically differentiate a concept. There is no need to do so here - a Holy Warrior is a Holy Warrior.
5.) Combine Sorcerer and Wizard - but primarily for administrative purposes. I'd have these spellcasters have the ability to harness innate magics if they gain access to them (through heritage or corruption of their bodies), but also to use their intellect to master magics. Regardless of which way they accessed magics it would pull from a single source of spell power available to them. Some would focus only on study and mastery while others would go for the simplicity of utilizing innate magics. Psion is more distinct - to me - than Sorcerer and Wizard are.
6.) I'd have the Warlock absorb some of the concepts of the Blood Hunter.
That would give me 10 classes: Artificer, Bard, Cleric/Paladin, Druid, Fighter/Barbarian, Mage/Sorcerer/Wizard, Monk/Psychic Warrior, Psion, Rogue/Ranger, Warlock/Blood Hunter.
I'd also redesign spellcasting so that we start to see higher level spellcasters be able to cast lower level spells an unlimited number of times - turning 1st, 2nd and eventually 3rd level spells into cantrips for them.
1.) Combine the Barbarian and Fighter. There is not enough distinction between the core of the two classes. Adding the barbarian unarmored defense and rage at 3rd level would also limit the 'dip it to win it' mentality.
2.) Add Artificer and Psion to the core classes. These each fill roles that are not addressed by existing classes (when you execute them well). My versions would be more aligned to the archetypes than we've seen in recent editions. A Psion would not, for example, use spells like a cleric, druid, bard or arcane spellcaster. Nor would Artificers - who would use steampunk science to build contraptions that function like magic items, but do not rely upon magic.
3.) Combine the Ranger and Rogue. I believe we lose a little bit of the core concept of these classes when we try to differentiate them - so don't. Make a single stealthy class that deals extra damage through hitting the sweet spot - but use subclasses to take them the route of the natural spellcaster, the thief, or the beastmaster. I would also roll the concept of the 4E Avenger in here as well as a sublass option.
4.) Combine the Cleric and Paladin. There are too many times when we artifically differentiate a concept. There is no need to do so here - a Holy Warrior is a Holy Warrior.
5.) Combine Sorcerer and Wizard - but primarily for administrative purposes. I'd have these spellcasters have the ability to harness innate magics if they gain access to them (through heritage or corruption of their bodies), but also to use their intellect to master magics. Regardless of which way they accessed magics it would pull from a single source of spell power available to them. Some would focus only on study and mastery while others would go for the simplicity of utilizing innate magics. Psion is more distinct - to me - than Sorcerer and Wizard are.
6.) I'd have the Warlock absorb some of the concepts of the Blood Hunter.
That would give me 10 classes: Artificer, Bard, Cleric/Paladin, Druid, Fighter/Barbarian, Mage/Sorcerer/Wizard, Monk/Psychic Warrior, Psion, Rogue/Ranger, Warlock/Blood Hunter.
I'd also redesign spellcasting so that we start to see higher level spellcasters be able to cast lower level spells an unlimited number of times - turning 1st, 2nd and eventually 3rd level spells into cantrips for them.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
They tested the waters verybearlyminb5E, and found out that apparently people actually hate Prestige Classes...particularly people who had played 3E, which makes a lot of sense to me. The concept, as far as D&D goes, seems quite dead.
As to the question: Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric. The Fighter can be the Skill guy.
Similar Threads
