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

[Scribe]

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

6 only...without subs? I dont know if I can even do that to myself.

 

[Gorck]

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

I'd go: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, and Monk aka the choices available in the original Final Fantasy for the NES (Warrior, Thief, White Mage, Black Mage, Red Mage, and Ninja).

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'd go: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, and Monk aka the choices available in the original Final Fantasy for the NES (Warrior, Thief, White Mage, Black Mage, Red Mage, and Ninja).

if comparing to the original FF to be a proper parralel to the way the Red Mage worked the bard would have to be halfcaster though IMO, given that it only got half progression in both white and black magic, or at least, fullcaster spell slot progression but only learns spells up to 5th.

 

[Lanefan]

If just six I'd go Fighter, Thief/Rogue, Cleric, Mage, Ranger*, and [Druid or Bard]. If Druid was folded into Cleric then Bard becomes the sixth, if not then bye-bye Bard as the Druid takes your place.

That said, there's a strong case to be made that six classes isn't enough and IMO an equally strong case that says 15 is too many. Also, some root classes lend themselves better to supporting subclasses than others e.g. numerous different spheres for Cleric or schools for Mage or styles of Fighter, as opposed to there really not being many if any subclasses for Bard, Druid, or Ranger.

* - minimal if any casting.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Thanks.

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 Barbarian adds their Con mod to unarmed Strikes, simple weapon attacks, improvised attacks, and unarmed AC. And they can swap Dex for Con when wearing Light armor.

And they can specialize with 3 simple weapon with one specialization slot.

So a Barbarian is stabbing with a short spear for 1d6+STR+CON with one bonus attack a turn

A fighter is incentivized to use martial weapons, exotic weapons, medium armor, and heavy armor. And they can swap Known Languages for more specialization slots.

So you have one warrior who embodies the traditional view of their weapon and armor loadout. Whereas the other warrior is just a very fast high damage improviser.

 

[TwoSix]

The Barbarian adds their Con mod to unarmed Strikes, simple weapon attacks, improvised attacks, and unarmed AC. And they can swap Dex for Con when wearing Light armor.

And they can specialize with 3 simple weapon with one specialization slot.

So a Barbarian is stabbing with a short spear for 1d6+STR+CON with one bonus attack a turn

A fighter is incentivized to use martial weapons, exotic weapons, medium armor, and heavy armor. And they can swap Known Languages for more specialization slots.

So you have one warrior who embodies the traditional view of their weapon and armor loadout. Whereas the other warrior is just a very fast high damage improviser.

I really like all this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

6 classes?

I think I'll stand pat with the a-four-mentioned Fighter, Ranger, Rogue & Wizard. Works for the Fellowship.

Or just, y'know, Hero and Mage

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bard, Warlock (same thing as a cleric), Warlord, Fighter, Rogue, Summoner.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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).

that is fair it is more that both druids and bards are well less varied archetypes and I would prefer not to double up in the core and if the bard is the arcane half caster there will be fights.

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.

I kind of agree but wizards are built wrong for the modern game and need to have both less spell versatility but also more thematic stuff to do to make you feel like more than a general wizard who is master of all as that cuts into many possible party niches and that steps on toes.

Bard, Warlock (same thing as a cleric), Warlord, Fighter, Rogue, Summoner.

on warlocks and cleric we are in agreement you are getting gifted power your a similar type of object.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bard, Warlock (same thing as a cleric), Warlord, Fighter, Rogue, Summoner.

To explain my reasoning:

Bards are already a full caster with a history of subclasses that just straight steal capabilities of other casters. So why not just make those classes into bardic subclasses? College of Tomes for a book nerd with a huge spell list, college of ancestors for someone focused on awakening their bloodline, College of Shapes for shapeshifting, College of Nature for primal magic.

Servitors for power is the warlock thing and also what the cleric is. Add a Devotion pact for that situation where you serve your patron because you believe in them. Take that and blade and some sort of save boosters, you get Paladin, Pact bow and a nature patron, and you get a Better Ranger.

Warlord and Fighter. We've already proven you can't just combine them and call it a day. Actually design the fighter to be a fighter in a fantasy world and they can cover everything Monk Barbarian and Ranger do mundanely (hand to hand fighting, brute, archer and TWF) while warlock and bard shoulder the magical stuff.

The Warlord is the Teamwork class, something that's only happened once in the history of the game and never should have gone away.

Rogue is simply the class that deserves to exist the most. They actually use skills and get to be good at them, actually interact with combat, social and the decayed, rotting husk of exploration equally and competently, and get good amounts of attention from development.

Summoner.

Look. It's about time D&D gets a summoner that isn't a sad afterthought that's badly designed and makes the action economy explode. No, pumping out spells that summon monsters isn't enough. You need a class to let you customize and have fun with your summons. This also give you the necromancer people actually want instead of the chump who commands wild skeletons and can cast a hurty spell like everyone else.

In conclusion, delete the Wizard. Good night, and good luck.