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

[jgsugden]

...Danger, Will Robinson!

Casters already have more than enough going for them at high levels, giving them this [unlimited castings of 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells] would really dial them to eleven.

Would it? Would a spell that does ~22 points of damage spontaneously ruin the game? Because cantrips currently do this... would the ability to go invisible an unlimited number of times ruin the game? Because we have a cloak that does that ... and wizards already get unlimited castings of a few spells.

This is sort of like the unlimited PTO trend in the USA. Telling people it is unlimited gives them the perception they've got a huge benefit ... but in reality, you just don't end up using it as much as you'd think.

In my vision we'd get rid of that 'cantrips get better as you go higher in level' and replace it with unlimited use of lower level spells. Instead of an unlimited mage hand, you get an unlimited unseen servant. Instead of unlimited light a 20th level cast could give you unlimited daylight. You're worried about a 20th level wizard blasting unlimited fireballs and/or lightning bolts? Why? When will they use them? They've already got so many spell slots of higher than 3rd level that they don't run out during a day of adventuring ... they'll just use these 'extra fireballs' to clear out minions, knock out walls, etc...

This mostly gives the PCs an increase in out of combat or precombat abilities. I've played around with it - and it isn't a problem at all. The fact that it looks problematic and overpowered at first glance is a feature - not a bug.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't know how many of those classes should be core classes. "Should" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

I will say, however, that I do think that Magic the Gathering would be an interesting place to start when considering archetypes for at least caster classes. The five colors of the pie, IMHO, provide a pretty good spread of both archetypes and playstyles, especially for different varieties of mages. I will not go so far as to say that this is what D&D should do, but I would at least consider this design space.

Could even take a cue from 4e as per @EzekielRaiden and use the five colors for the power sources and then design classes with different roles using these power sources.

Five fighting styles: bastion, berserker, hunter, assassin, swashbuckler. Five skill groups by color.

Then do either eight classes: one multicolor fighter, one multicolor wizard, one multicolor rogue, and one color-based for each color...

Or do a class (a whole class) for each intersection, being sure to add a bit beyond just Color + Role to make each one pop. Like a druid isn't just a green mage, they also get shapeshifting. All red classes get a surge mechanic like rage or power surge.

Something like:

	Warrior	Expert	Mage
Black	Blackguard	Assassin	Necromancer/Warlock
Blue	Swashbuckler	Bard	Psion
Green	Hunter	Ranger	Druid
Red	Berserker	Brute	Sorcerer
White	Bastion or Cavalier	Inquisitor	Cleric
Multicolor	Fighter	Rogue	Wizard

Multicolors can learn all the stuff in their column for all colors, but can't learn across columns - wizards really just do spells. They also don't get much beyond the basics. Single-color classes can learn cross-column (ie sorcerers can become expert intimidators or grapplers, and can even rage) but are stuck in their row.

Later non-core books can add specifically colorless classes like alchemist and artificer, or a group of monk classes with different styles or schools by color. You could also add two-color classes (but only one for each pair - 40 is plenty of classes for a single game.

(I've given this a bit more thought than it really deserves)

Some of the names need workshopping.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just anything less than 12 in the initial book. I'm convinced that we have so many flaws and problems with the current classes because they're trying to push out so much at once with the first PHB. I'd much rather have less classes to start with, where each of them is high quality and balanced.

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...

 

[schneeland]

Assuming multiclassing or subclasses are option, I'll go with just Wizard/Thief/Fighter/Cleric (potentially renamed to Mage/Expert/Fighter/Priest) and all other archetypes would be built on those.
One could argue that divine and arcane magic could be lumped into a single class, but I feel D&D has too much of a history with both being separate.
Monks are probably distinct enough to warrant a separate class, but I would consider it a non-core/setting-specific class (similar reasoning would probably apply to artificer and maybe also warlock).
Naturally, if multiclassing and subclasses are not present, archetypes need to be materialized into individual classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Five fighting styles: bastion, berserker, hunter, assassin, swashbuckler. Five skill groups by color.

Then do either eight classes: one multicolor fighter, one multicolor wizard, one multicolor rogue, and one color-based for each color...

Or do a class (a whole class) for each intersection, being sure to add a bit beyond just Color + Role to make each one pop. Like a druid isn't just a green mage, they also get shapeshifting. All red classes get a surge mechanic like rage or power surge.

Something like:

	Warrior	Expert	Mage
Black	Blackguard	Assassin	Necromancer/Warlock
Blue	Swashbuckler	Bard	Psion
Green	Hunter	Ranger	Druid
Red	Berserker	Brute	Sorcerer
White	Bastion or Cavalier	Inquisitor	Cleric
Multicolor	Fighter	Rogue	Wizard

I quit MTG loooooong ago but it already had class tribes
Soldiers and Clerics for W
Warriors and Shaman for R

But like I say about everything MTG, D&D's and MTG's magic are too different to combine or switch over.

At best the only gridfilling that works is Nurture vs Nature vs Borrowed/Granted.
Then go by Power source: Arcane vs Divine vs Primal vs Martial vs Tech

 

[Xamnam]

I voted for everything currently in the books, and adding Summoner and Witch. I do want most of the other options available, but many of them seem easily covered by subclass to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Another thing.

All of the fighter's subclasses could be turn into a core class.
None of them use the fighter's mechanics directly and have their own.

 

[Lanefan]

Would it? Would a spell that does ~22 points of damage spontaneously ruin the game? Because cantrips currently do this...

I'd argue that cantrips are a large part of the reason why people are complainign about the fighter-wizard gap in 5e.

would the ability to go invisible an unlimited number of times ruin the game? Because we have a cloak that does that ... and wizards already get unlimited castings of a few spells.

A cloak can only be used by one person at a time. Invis can be cast on dozens...oh, but there's concentration; a mechanic I'd largely like to see Go Away.

This is sort of like the unlimited PTO trend in the USA. Telling people it is unlimited gives them the perception they've got a huge benefit ... but in reality, you just don't end up using it as much as you'd think.

PTO? The only thing I know of that uses that acronym is Professional Try Out in pro sport training camps.

In my vision we'd get rid of that 'cantrips get better as you go higher in level' and replace it with unlimited use of lower level spells. Instead of an unlimited mage hand, you get an unlimited unseen servant. Instead of unlimited light a 20th level cast could give you unlimited daylight. You're worried about a 20th level wizard blasting unlimited fireballs and/or lightning bolts? Why? When will they use them? They've already got so many spell slots of higher than 3rd level that they don't run out during a day of adventuring ... they'll just use these 'extra fireballs' to clear out minions, knock out walls, etc...

I'd prefer a system where if you've got 6 3rd level slots then no matter what you do you can only cast 6 3rd level spells per day, period. To wit, you cannot use a higher-level slot to cast a lower-level spell, as that allows too much spamming of low-level spells.

This mostly gives the PCs an increase in out of combat or precombat abilities. I've played around with it - and it isn't a problem at all. The fact that it looks problematic and overpowered at first glance is a feature - not a bug.

Feature? Bug? Red flag, is what I say.

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.

 

[Stormonu]

Something I was playing around with thinking about this.

 

[Scribe]

Something I was playing around with thinking about this.

Interesting visualization. I would think Warlock may sit in the middle as its such an odd ball to me, but thats something to look over.