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%


log in or register to remove this ad

TBF, at the time, they might have thought that they'd never get to do a PH2, if it didn't do well and Hasbro pulled the plug...

...oh, wait, they never did do a PH2... :oops:
At some point there seems to have been a big direction pivot in 5e. Lots of design got changed or didn't happen despite being initially planned. Stuff like creature templates for NPCs was started on and then cut post monster manual. More classes were mentioned a few times early on, with the swordmage being in the design process and the psion entering playtesting. There was an exploration module mentioned somewhere too which the ranger would have meshed with.

And then something happened behind the scenes and the games internal design got changed.

I suspect that artificer only got through on sheer momentum, and if it was even a year later it would have been cancelled. It's also why I suspect that the artificer won't be updated for dnd 2024, and related to legacy content.
 

....This is why I got away from the homebrew spell points system we'd been using for decades and went back to limited slots - the s.p. idea works great at low level but just gets too powerful at higher levels when a caster can put all their spell points into casting the same low-level spell over and over.
Your experience with this is 100% different than mine. It is exceedingly strange that we'd have such fundamentally opposite experiences.

Within combat at high levels - even in 5E (as opposed to 3E or earlier) - casters do not run out of spell slots. Warlocks can, and there are occasional builds designed to use multiple spell slots per turn (soradin that uses a slot on a quickened spell, 2 more slots to smite on a multiattack, and then one more to smite on a reaction attack can get through 4 slots per turn - they can run out over a few encounters). It is this opportunity cost dilemna that keeps it from being overpowered in combat.

The extra slots tend to be used outside of combat - and that is fine. It gives the PCs more of a feeling of being a powerful spellcaster for out of combat endeavors. You end up with less of the, "I need to save spell slots for combat just in case, so I won't use that utility 1st level spell, even though I prepared it. You never know when you'll need to cast shield, absorb elements, silvery barbs,...." This keeps most low level utility spells from being used, even when prepared.

More reasons to know this is all fine:

Wand of Fireball / Wand of Lightning Bolts give nearly limitless evocations. This is an item I see PCs drool over when I give it to them ... but unless they get it at below ~8th level, it tends to not get used that much. It does in psuedo combat situations to wipe out non-threats that could be eliminated other ways (or to destroy barriers, etc...)

Warlocks already get unlimited use of low level spells - and at much lower level than I suggest giving them. Unlimited Silent Image, Disguise Self, Mage Armor, False Life, Speak with Animals, or Detect Magic an infinite number of times at 2nd level. You even have 5th level warlocks that can cast sending an infinite number of times - and that was added down the road indicating they thought that expanding the options for warlocks was appropriate. Other spells become available at higher level. If you look through how often these spells are taken - it is not a lot. Despite the limited spell slots of the warlock, these invocations are often ignored.
 

Assuming roughly 5ish core rules instead of a total redo from scratch.

Definitely in:

Fighter. We of course have our trusty fighter, embodying a soldier or trained martial combatant that is fighting with skill. This can also include being a master of war on broader sense, such as tactics and inspiring others. There should be a bespoke subclass that focuses on those areas.

Barbarian. We keep barbarian as a separate class. It is distinct enough from fighter being a primal and and not relying on armour. Spiritual side of the class could be emphasised more for further distinction.

Rogue. This is conceptually and mechanically solid class and of course is included.

Monk. With its unarmed fighting and spiritual focus this is a class that best works as its own full class. The class should learn more on the mystical powers, perhaps even going as far as making it a half caster.

Cleric. We could also call this priest. This is a solid concept and has a clear mechanical role. However move a way from bit from the Christian inspired crusader aspect to make representing more varied priestly concepts easier. And whilst it should be decent in melee, let's leave heavy armour to the fighter; light as default, some subclasses upgrade to medium.

Wizard. Hate them or love them, they need to be in D&D. This is a caster who learns their magic by studying. They understand the magical formulas and patterns. Subclasses need an almost complete redo, and while we are at it, let's just ditch the unintuitive schools of magic from spells as well.

Warlock. Or sorcerer? People already love sorlocks, lets make it official; we just combine these two. This is the intuitive caster who has innate source of magic, be it via birth right, a magical accident or by being transformed via a pact. Has always-on magical features similar to invocations and dragon scales etc.

Bard. Everyone's favourite! We continue our pruning of full-casters here and make bard a half-caster. Let's focus on two defining features of the class, being jack-of-all-trades and inspiring other. Half-caster is enough for such a concept, we don't want the class to focus on magic too much and become a sorcerer with a lute. We also boost the weapon combat capabilities to make the class more viable on that are. And then to inspire others they gains "songs," auras that they can activate to provide benefits allies and nuisance to the foes.


Then to the maybe category:

Druid. This could of course easily be folded to the cleric. What is wildshape but a primal channel divinity? Then again, to fully take advantage of animal friendship and wildshape aspects probably works better as a full class. If it is included, is should be distinguished from cleri by focusing on animism, communing with animals and nature spirits and shapeshifting. Also the shapeshifting should me moved away from using MM profiles, but it should still provide profiles that reflect the shapes assumed. The shapes should have distinct roles such as tanky, stealthy, striker etc. This ability to assume different roles makes druid unique.

Ranger. Conceptually this makes sense as a full class. Being the master of wilderness and thus the exploration pillar should be worth dedicating a class to it. The issue is that mechanically this seems hard to do. If enough decent mechnics (be they magical or mundane) can be amassed on that area ranger should be its own class, if not, then it should be folded into another class. Oh, and not into fighter, rogue is actually a better home for a lightly armoured skirmisher that often relies on stealth.

Paladin. This could be its own class, but also works just fine as a subclass of the fighter. It depends on how magical we want it to be. If we are okay with a knightly characters with perhaps some limited magic, fighter is a good home for it. If we want to focus on magic more, it needs a separate class. But personally I never found these highly magical knights as compelling concept, so I could do without it being a full class.
 

I like a lot of @Crimson Longinus 's ideas. The idea of a Paladin (and possibly Ranger) being subclasses of the Fighter could certainly be done, especially if part of Additional Attack (3rd & 4th attack) is moved off to Champion.

On consideration, I would make the Arcane class "Mage", with Wizard a subclass (along with all the other current wizard specialties - such as Necromancer). I don't agree with dropping the schools from magic, but could do with a couple additional tags (elemental, geomancy, etc.) that would assist with grouping the spells out to subclasses.

Rolling Druid into Cleric/Priest is an interesting idea I hadn't thought of, especially with their shapeshift being a Channel Divinity ability (and maybe give Clerics back a couple more uses of Channel anyways). I also agree with it moving towards a more scholarly type with less martial ability, with a more martial type that possibly sacrifices some spell levels (going back to the old 7 levels of cleric spells).

Doing this sort of rolling together would, to me, make sense to have Prestige Classes, which would allow for the likes of the old Paladin subclasses for those classes that get rolled together.
 

I prefer to have less classes with a distinct niche. One thing I love about the Basic Rules is that everyone has their niche:
  • Fighters are the only one who can use martial weapons and heavy armors.
  • Cleric are the only one with Divine magic, Wizard are the only one with Arcane.
  • Rogues are the only one with Expertise.

A 5th class could be added, merging primal spells and the creepy warlock-only spells to have a ''primal/ye ol' magic'' class. Give it the Fiend Warlock, the Moon Druid and the Storm Sorcerer as PHB archetypes and I think it would be an interesting class.
 


Alternatively, a paladin is a fighter with extra stuff (a subclass) which is balanced with restrictions.
 



Remove ads

Top