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

[Reynard]

Not really, no.

Having goals and desires and motivation instead of just being evil because the writer is unmotivated is great.

For certain purposes, complex enemies are better. But for other purposes, starkly drawn enemies are better. Many forms of entertainment rely on stock characters, of which "evil orcs" are an example. Like the Nazis in Indiana Jones. Do you think Indiana Jones would benefit from Nazis with complex motivations? Or do you think there us narrative value in a discernably evil enemy?

 

[Mecheon]

And in so doing, destroyed the Ranger class.

I'd argue it didn't have a good vision to begin with. It started as a pseudo-Aragon and got shoved around. The pet addition took super well for it, but it never really had good support for it. Personally I think 4E had a good idea to it, but it being a sort of combo of a heavier-armored (but not full on armor like a fighter) rogue-ish (but without the trap disarming and more on the tracking and survival) with a bit of light nature magic (Distinct from divine and arcane) is the best way to make it stand out

To me, the bolded is what the Rogue is supposed to be and do.

Expanding "favoured enemy" beyond just Giants (and who fights Giants in anything less than the best armour they can get their grubby little mitts on?) didn't help either; though I could get behind giving some other classes versions of favoured enemies. For Assassins, for example, it could be Humans (or humanoids).

That does completely limit their functionality. "Whoops your class is useless because this enemy type came up" is never a fun thing. Frankly the idea of being able to study something and use that to gain and advantage is the better thing, rather than a stock 'i really dislike this thing'. Ala Monster Hunter or the Witcher where you learn a monster's weakness and target weak points

 

[Vaalingrade]

For certain purposes, complex enemies are better. But for other purposes, starkly drawn enemies are better. Many forms of entertainment rely on stock characters, of which "evil orcs" are an example. Like the Nazis in Indiana Jones. Do you think Indiana Jones would benefit from Nazis with complex motivations? Or do you think there us narrative value in a discernably evil enemy?

You... realize that the Nazis in Indiana Jones had a motivation, right? Like not all motivations are good or benign, but it's not like those guys we trying to kill Indy because he was nearby and they had literally nothing else to do. Which is what Always Evil orcs do things because it's an evil thing to do despite the fact that it will absolutely end with them dead for it.

Being discernably evil is not what 'evil orcs' are about as a discussion point. It's about making an entire sapient species inherently evil with no motivation aside from lazy writing about their drunk dad being mean.

 

[fuindordm]

I'm a bit late to the conversation but my ideal D&D has a large selection of non-spellcasting classes, which each support a different player style and way of interacting with the game. Some of these can have magical abilities or puch mundane feats to supernatural levels, but as icing on the cake rather than their main shtick.

I want the warrior and rogue groups to cover enough roles a low-magic or even no-magic setting.

Without thinking about subclasses, I think the following deserve to be mains:

Warriors: fighter (gets more out of weapons and armor), barbarian (rage is fun for everyone), warlord (martial buffer/controller), hunter (mundane ranger, who gets combat bonuses after stalking and studying an enemy and knows how to set traps)

Skill monkeys: rogue (stealth and movement), assassin (infiltrator and crits), mastermind/detective (investigation and plans), duelist (combat and flair, but unlike the warrior group would have difficulty against multiple opponents)

Hybrids: paladin (tradition), monk (tradition), bard (as half-caster or 2/3 caster, but very distinct from rogue/wiz or rogue/ill for its hybrid arcane/divine spell list)

Arcane spellcasters: wizard (without assumptions about power source and a build-your-own approach to subclass theme, it can eat the sorcerer class), illusionist (tradition and the whole approach to magic is so different it merits a class of its own), warlock (borrowed power, completely different mechanics from main traditions)

Divine spellcasters: cleric, druid (wildshape is unique), summoner (borrowed power, different mechanics. It doesn't exist yet outside PF and reliable summoned allies makes more sense to me as divine rather than arcane)

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The point is there is a difference between "they" and "you." WotC cannot stop you from continuing to use orcs (or whatever) as stock killable enemies, and probably doesn't care to try. If you want evil orcs, use evil orcs.

I'm basically creating a from scratch 'enemy creature' for my homebrew setting. Not playable at all.

Because it would suck for a player if they've thought of a cool orc character, then come along and find that in the setting all orcs are non sapient monsters. At this point, playable orcs are expected in DnD, to the point that they're becoming a PHB species.

I even consider gnolls to be on the wrong side of a losing battle. Gnolls have been playable in every edition apart from 5e. And even though in 5e gnolls are generic monsters, I suspect the player ire will begin to fall on them next due to their history of being a playable species.

 

[Minigiant]

Here is the class list for Mansions and Minigiant

1. Alchemist
2. Artificer
3. Assassin
4. Avenger (nonmagical paladin)
5. Barbarian (low tech warrior)
6. Bard
7. Beastmaster (pet class)
8. Berserker
9. Captain
10. Champion (simple nonmagical warrior)
11. Cleric
12. Druid
13. Fighter
14. Gladiator
15. Hunter (nonmagical ranger)
16. Knight
17. Mageguard (gish)
18. Monk
19. Noble
20. Oracle
21. Paladin
22. Psychic
23. Ranger
24. Scholar
25. Shaman
26. Shifter
27. Sorcerer
28. Thief
29. Warlock
30. Wizard

Note there are no subclasses in the game and each of the 25 classes are appropriately only 1 page of mechanics. Yup 30 of them.

 

[TwoSix]

Here is the class list for Mansions and Minigiant

1. Alchemist
2. Artificer
3. Assassin
4. Avenger (nonmagical paladin)
5. Barbarian (low tech warrior)
6. Bard
7. Beastmaster (pet class)
8. Berserker
9. Captain
10. Champion (simple nonmagical warrior)
11. Cleric
12. Druid
13. Fighter
14. Gladiator
15. Hunter (nonmagical ranger)
16. Knight
17. Mageguard (gish)
18. Monk
19. Noble
20. Oracle
21. Paladin
22. Psychic
23. Ranger
24. Scholar
25. Shaman
26. Shifter
27. Sorcerer
28. Thief
29. Warlock
30. Wizard

Note there are no subclasses in the game and each of the 25 classes are appropriately only 1 page of mechanics. Yup 30 of them.

Now THAT is a proper class list.

 

[Minigiant]

Now THAT is a proper class list.

That's after I cut and merged many classes too.

 

[TwoSix]

That's after I cut and merged many classes too.

A game built around several dozen classes, all of which only take up 1-2 pages, is one of my dream presentations for a D&D like system.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A game built around several dozen classes, all of which only take up 1-2 pages, is one of my dream presentations for a D&D like system.

I'm the exact opposite. I want few main classes and I want them to have subclasses and a lot of customisation.