D&D General Your Core Classes if The Core 4 Aren't Allowed

[GreyLord]

If we can't have Humans, what type of RPG is this?

Might as well eschew everything with species/ancestry/race then.

I'll go with Redwall/harvester's types.

Species - Rabbit, Mouse, Rat, Badger

Classes - Knight, Pastor/Charismatic, Paladin, Fraudster on the civilization side, and on the wilderness side, Ranger, Druid, Barbarian, Outlaw.

If we want to include Magic we would have Sorcerer and on the wilderness side...Warlock.

 

[Tigris]

I like these ideas. Shifter is a great inbetween race. I am tempted to not have a 'mostly normal' race, but if i do they are a great pick.

My philosophy is that if you have small folk and big folk and bright folk and dark folk and magic folk and wild folk and stoic folk and furries...why do you need a 'human'? We can put a mask on and play literal animals, we can pretend to be of a race of 7+ foot tall people who invented the first mortal language and who can yeet boulders or a race of small clever quick folk with natural magic amd ability to talk to critters.

If someome wants to be 'plain jane the farm girl called to adventure, have them pick a class and then give them the race best suited to that class (of the more humanoid races).

Well I dont need a "Human", but many people need their bland vanilla. (Same as some people need their bland "I only basic attack" fighter...)


Human in D&D is still the most played race and not having something similar at least could drive many people away. Even computer games still need to have this normal race even in games where it feels off because everything else is strange.


Also I am not that much fan of "small race" (and to a lesser degree "big races").


You can be small or long, thin or thick as a "human" as well. I prefer having this variety in normal races as well.


If we go small then pixie thats really different.



About "simple classes", as said some people need them, and I think having some is a good idea, but I think its important that they are distributed through several power fantasies.

So I think these 4 base classes could be all complex to show that each power source and each role can have a certain depth.


Then for making simpler classes I would do things like

- Elementalist Sorcerer as a simple caster using elements as a striker

- Hunter ranger as a ranged arrow using controller

- A paladin defender could also be made to be more or less simple.

- as a simple leader A skald bard could fit although I would simplify that further compared to the 4e skald version


Its kind of a bit similar to the shifter. I want something for people liking vanilla, but I would still make sure there is some interesting about them.

 

[Fifinjir]

Species: aasomar, tiefling, genasii, and some shadow and fay planetouched.
This shows us a world where the physical and supernatural realities have no “wall” between them, everyone is affected by the Planes.

Classes:
Warlock
Paladin
barbarian
monk/mystic (not necessarily a face-puncher, but can be built that way)
ranger (but with more “planar” than “natural” subclasses)
sorcerer (which I’d rather be built as a gish)
summon focused caster
psion (with lore associating them with the astral plane)
alchemist/sage
trapper (to close to rogue?)
Beguiler/illusionist
Shapeshifter (not limited to animal forms)

I further restricted myself to deemphasize “natural” classes because, if I go with this idea of “everything ins planar touched”, what “nature” even is anymore gets tricky.

 

[Tigris]

If we can't have Humans, what type of RPG is this?

Might as well eschew everything with species/ancestry/race then.

Well it cant also just be typical fantasy (like D&D and Final Fantasy), but humans did die out because they were weak and ugly, so they could not stand for themselves, and no one wanted them as pet.

You could even have it in the lore that some "hairless apes" existed some time ago, but went extinct. Some races which can grow really old still remember some of them.

 

[Stormonu]

Well it cant also just be typical fantasy (like D&D and Final Fantasy), but humans did die out because they were weak and ugly, so they could not stand for themselves, and no one wanted them as pet.

You could even have it in the lore that some "hairless apes" existed some time ago, but went extinct. Some races which can grow really old still remember some of them.

An interesting twist might be to go the other direction - perhaps Cro-magnon, Neanderthal or Australopithecus won out over modern humanity - what would that look like?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If we can't have Humans, what type of RPG is this?

A fantasy one with a specific setting that doesnt include humans? It isnt exactly unheard of.

Might as well eschew everything with species/ancestry/race then.

That is a bit silly, imo. Species is more valuable when you take out yhe 'idk just a guy or whatever' option, not less.

I'll go with Redwall/harvester's types.

Species - Rabbit, Mouse, Rat, Badger

Classes - Knight, Pastor/Charismatic, Paladin, Fraudster on the civilization side, and on the wilderness side, Ranger, Druid, Barbarian, Outlaw.

If we want to include Magic we would have Sorcerer and on the wilderness side...Warlock.

See, without fighter and wizard you start thinking about how mastery at arms and mastety of the understanding of magic can be represented, and IMO almost ceetainly come up with better than fighter and wizard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well I dont need a "Human", but many people need their bland vanilla. (Same as some people need their bland "I only basic attack" fighter...)

See the barbarian and rogue are IMO just as simple as the fighter, and are better for new amd casual players because they dont ask you to invent the flavor yourself.

Human in D&D is still the most played race and not having something similar at least could drive many people away. Even computer games still need to have this normal race even in games where it feels off because everything else is strange.

That is fine. Not worried about trying to be the top dog.

Also I am not that much fan of "small race" (and to a lesser degree "big races").

I mean, there arent any of those in reality, even the halfling and goliath have more going on than their size. If you use the new goliath (and firbolg) and use gnomes, it is even moreso.

You can be small or long, thin or thick as a "human" as well. I prefer having this variety in normal races as well.

I mean sure but with humans being big is utterly meaningless. It is the kimd of trait that should be represented by mechanics, imo.

If we go small then pixie thats really different.

For sure!

About "simple classes", as said some people need them, and I think having some is a good idea, but I think its important that they are distributed through several power fantasies.

So I think these 4 base classes could be all complex to show that each power source and each role can have a certain depth.


Then for making simpler classes I would do things like

- Elementalist Sorcerer as a simple caster using elements as a striker

- Hunter ranger as a ranged arrow using controller

- A paladin defender could also be made to be more or less simple.

- as a simple leader A skald bard could fit although I would simplify that further compared to the 4e skald version

A blaster caster makes a lot of sense.
A leader could just have a simple but potent aura and reaction help action, and maybe a BA boost to ally damage, and that is it.

Its kind of a bit similar to the shifter. I want something for people liking vanilla, but I would still make sure there is some interesting about them.

Yeah for sure. To me, having a few of those is ust better than having a generic race with nothing going on except being the mediocre default.


In my own game i couldnt say no humans because it is set in our world. so i made them better at running, recovering from injury, and ignoring injury for a while.