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

[Micah Sweet]

We don't need Wizard. We have far more interesting magic users available.

I don't want to get rid of wizard. To me, that's how you use magic, and it's plenty interesting. You want alternatives, include alternatives.

 

[Micah Sweet]

for starter no one seem to be able to tell me where druids are getting powers from likewise with bard, plus we could do with a solid ten and we would need some more non casters

I like druids as divine casters (divine can take different forms) and bards as learning by study like wizards (just not nearly as dedicated, as I'd prefer bards not be full casters).

 

[TwoSix]

I like druids as divine casters (divine can take different forms) and bards as learning by study like wizards (just not nearly as dedicated, as I'd prefer bards not be full casters).

If I was doing this 6 class chassis (which I actually kind of like), I'd have fighter, rogue, and bard with a noncaster base, but a relatively limited core class chassis with strong, impactful subclasses. Certainly enough subclass power budget available that half-caster subclasses would be feasible.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If I was doing this 6 class chassis (which I actually kind of like), I'd have fighter, rogue, and bard with a noncaster base, but a relatively limited core class chassis with strong, impactful subclasses. Certainly enough subclass power budget available that half-caster subclasses would be feasible.

only 6 classes as a core framework? oof that's tight, but my picks... sorcerer, cleric, ranger, artificer, rogue, warlord,

 

[Tony Vargas]

only 6 classes as a core framework? oof that's tight, but my picks... sorcerer, cleric, ranger, artificer, rogue, warlord,

That's ... interesting.... is that a traditional, spell-less, or 1/2-caster Ranger?

 

[Lanefan]

I once pondered an class heavy old school game and in it it included

A Barbarian Class
A Berserker Class
A Monk Class

The Barbarian differed from the Berserker as it focused on the concept of the Barbarian being a warrior from an outside culture with less access to advanced tech and therefore leaned on lower quality armor, being unarmored, unarmed Strikes, and simple weapons.

This made the Barbarian and Monk 2 sides of the Unarmed/Simple Unarmored/Light Warrior coin.

That is the best - and it's not even close! - rationale I've seen yet for keeping Barbarian as a class. I could get behind this.

The Barbarian leaned chaotic fury, focused on Toughness and used CON for AC and Damage.

The Monk leaned on Disciplined calm, focused on Will, and used WIS for AC and Damage.

I'd still have both use Strength for damage.

The hard part - which I assume you took care of somehow - would be finding enough niche abilities to give the Barbarian to differentiate it from a basic street-brawler style Fighter.

The Berserker just raged.

Were it me I wouldn't bother building a whole class around berserking. Instead I would (and do) have berserk be a not-always-welcome and never-controlled condition (or curse) that can happen to anyone; where a berserk person throws caution to the wind (i.e. big AC penalty), goes all-out attack (i.e. gains big to-hit and damage bonuses), and attacks the nearest living moving thing other than itself no matter who it is.

When Hulk goes berserk he can still tell friend from foe. That nicety goes away with what I'm thinking of.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing is though, they don't have those. Barbarian and ranger specifically doesn't have the armor choice thing for a quick example

Ranger should. That it doesn't is IMO an error.

Trying to sub-class them into Fighter is just either going to make Fighter absolutely watered down that it has no flavour of its own, or limit those classes due to the restrictions placed on them by being stuck on the fighter chasis. Likewise, the Fighter should have things that are unique to the Fighter itself, its not just "The class that uses a bunch of martial weapons"

The thing unique to the Fighter should be that it can use that bunch of martial weapons better than anyone else - or even just one of those weapons. Weapon specialization a la late 1e and 2e, made available to Fighters only, can help them a lot; and also gives a good hook on which to hang one's characterization.

 

[TwoSix]

only 6 classes as a core framework? oof that's tight, but my picks... sorcerer, cleric, ranger, artificer, rogue, warlord,

Well, I was going by the results of the poll. Those are the only 6 classes to get more than 50% of the votes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's ... interesting.... is that a traditional, spell-less, or 1/2-caster Ranger?

halfcaster, so there's 2 casters, 2 half casters and 2 martials.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, I was going by the results of the poll. Those are the only 6 classes to get more than 50% of the votes.

oh i realised you were going off the poll results, but i was just taking the premise of the statement and deciding what i would do in the framework of 'only 6 classes'