What about an option where every time you gain a subclass feature, there's 4-5 to pick from and you can only have one? I kind of lean towards wanting that and a few subclasses already have some features that operate this way. It would give a bunch of options to make even subclasses unique. One could end up with 2 Life Clerics in the party, with distinctly different approaches and skillsets to tackling issues. It would merge some existing subclasses, putting the unique features to each in selectable points,(example might be Swords and Valor Bard merging, with the subclass features being options) This would also allow for a more interesting concoction of blending subclasses where folks see some features as nice and others within that subclass as a waste, while another subclass has something they'd like and/or would fit thematically with their character concept.
I'm not a fan of scrapping levels, due to, as mentioned, the balancing and measuring it allows. The levels gives one an idea of what the character (or monster) should be capable of doing or having done to it, as the case may warrant. Making fewer subclasses, with more options at subclass feature levels would open he gates to a lot more variety.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
People say "Play something else" because the argument you're making is that D&D and the core parts of it are bad. If you don't like it, don't play it. I disagree entirely that classes are not one of the most well known parts of D&D. People being wizards and fighters and killing dragons is what everyone I've ever talked to about D&D knows about it. There are things in D&D that need work, and I have no problem pointing those things out or with other people pointing them out. But when the idea's pitched to remove things that have been integral to the game for nearly 50 years, its not ridiculous to point out that games like that already exist.
ETA: Literally nothing about this is objectively bad. It is bad in your subjective opinion. I, and many other people, very much enjoy the class system.
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
Yurei, aside from the tone of any suggestion made - what's the alternative here? What situation are we talking about and what would be the proper approach?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"D&D classes are bad" is a subjective claim. Many many people enjoy playing their D&D classes just fine. Maybe some people can appreciate the intellectual ttrpg gaming theory argument that D&D is bad but at that point you might as well be a radical marxist intellectual teaching class consciousness. You may be right, but the claim isn't really moving anyone. "No, D&D is doing you wrong, it's the system see. There are better ways!"
But, despite some of the discussions' tenor on this board at times, we're talking about fun and not really arguing the world. So the enlightened critical perspective against standard D&D is pretty epiphenomenal to the bulk of people playing the game. Yes there are flaws in D&D, flaws that frustrate some minds who take the game seriously, that is a truth. But people enjoy playing the classes as presented is also a truth.
For what it's worth the algorithm cycled through an archive of classless D&D content for about two days when this thread started and I engaged it when it first started, the revolution wasn't televised, though the movement did get some clicks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
Yurei, aside from the tone of any suggestion made - what's the alternative here? What situation are we talking about and what would be the proper approach?
The answer is incredibly simple.
Don't tell someone to stop playing D&D just because they may not like a given aspect of it.
There's a lot of D&D in D&D. The game is pretty stonking huge at this point, everybody's in it for different reasons. Dismissing somebody's concerns, saying 'well that's just the way D&D is so if you don't like it then you don't deserve to play it, kthxbai" is incredibly uncool. You may not agree with the change proposed. A lot of people don't agree with the idea of classless D&D, and even I know it's never gonna happen.
But when somebody pines for a D&D where every last single fighter is not completely identical to every other fighter? When somebody would like a game where you cannot, in fact, pluck two level 5 fighters from any two D&D games, switch them around, and be almost entirely assured that absolutely nobody will notice? Maybe hear them out. Engage in the discussion, see if there's another avenue that can be taken somewhere between "sure let's do it" and "no, and also stop playing TTRPGs forever."
Discussing issues with a games mechanics isn’t a problem. And looking at Game 1 and Game 2 and taking what each does well and making Game 3 is fine. But I think that is the point! It is now Game 3. It is no longer Game 1 or Game 2, even though they share similar features. It’s not Game 1+ so Game 3 might be a better game for some players but others liked Game 1 despite it’s flaws, or did not even see them as flaws. That’s why there are so many RPG options out there to fit different players tastes.
Similar to the Thief 4 video game. It had the name but not the feel like Thief:Dark Project.
I've yet to see anyone say "You don't play D&D the way I do, so your not allowed to play it". I'm sure they exist, somewhere on the interwebz. At some point. I...just haven't seen it, and saying people on this thread are saying it is...disingenuous.
If I have a car, and Bob comes along and decides that it isn't as agile more fuel efficient as he'd like, so he strips the frame down, takes off two wheels, puts a smaller engine in, takes away all but one of the seats and takes off the seatbelts, it's not "gatekeeping" to say it's not a car anymore. It's a bike. Maybe the bike is better for Bob. Heck, maybe it's even better for me. It's still not a car.
You want to change the system? Crack on, I don't care. You want to change it beyond all reconisability? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But at some point, your car is going to become a bike. If you remove classes, the six ability scores, the skill system and levels, what you have left is...the lore. Maybe some disagree, but I don't think of the lore as being what D&D boils down to. Hence why Forgotten Realms and Eberron are both equally valid D&D.
You want to shake how the class system a bit? Go ahead, I'll be open to it. Convince me it's better and I'll even support you. I'm not married to how it is done at the moment. But when people are saying that taking a core feature of the system is changing a game so fundamentally that the name stops being a name of the game and purely a name of a company or franchise...that's a valid opinion, and no amount of name calling changes that. I don't know how far D&D could change before I stop thinking about it as D&D and start thinking about it as another game, but there is a limit. Levels are a central part of D&D's identity, just as much as warp and phasers are a part of Star Trek's.
And speaking of name calling, refraining from name calling when people disagree with would make this forum a bit more pleasant to frequent.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
Yurei, aside from the tone of any suggestion made - what's the alternative here? What situation are we talking about and what would be the proper approach?
The answer is incredibly simple.
Don't tell someone to stop playing D&D just because they may not like a given aspect of it.
There's a lot of D&D in D&D. The game is pretty stonking huge at this point, everybody's in it for different reasons. Dismissing somebody's concerns, saying 'well that's just the way D&D is so if you don't like it then you don't deserve to play it, kthxbai" is incredibly uncool. You may not agree with the change proposed. A lot of people don't agree with the idea of classless D&D, and even I know it's never gonna happen.
But when somebody pines for a D&D where every last single fighter is not completely identical to every other fighter? When somebody would like a game where you cannot, in fact, pluck two level 5 fighters from any two D&D games, switch them around, and be almost entirely assured that absolutely nobody will notice? Maybe hear them out. Engage in the discussion, see if there's another avenue that can be taken somewhere between "sure let's do it" and "no, and also stop playing TTRPGs forever."
Well, sure, but the - possibly mistaken - impression I got was that this was about changing the D&D ruleset, or transplanting a setting and/or campaign created for D&D onto a different system. In which case it's pretty much an instance of a rose by any other name. Is it important that this other game would nominally still be D&D instead of Awesome Ed's Awesome Classless Fantasy Extravaganza?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
Yurei, aside from the tone of any suggestion made - what's the alternative here? What situation are we talking about and what would be the proper approach?
The answer is incredibly simple.
Don't tell someone to stop playing D&D just because they may not like a given aspect of it.
There's a lot of D&D in D&D. The game is pretty stonking huge at this point, everybody's in it for different reasons. Dismissing somebody's concerns, saying 'well that's just the way D&D is so if you don't like it then you don't deserve to play it, kthxbai" is incredibly uncool. You may not agree with the change proposed. A lot of people don't agree with the idea of classless D&D, and even I know it's never gonna happen.
But when somebody pines for a D&D where every last single fighter is not completely identical to every other fighter? When somebody would like a game where you cannot, in fact, pluck two level 5 fighters from any two D&D games, switch them around, and be almost entirely assured that absolutely nobody will notice? Maybe hear them out. Engage in the discussion, see if there's another avenue that can be taken somewhere between "sure let's do it" and "no, and also stop playing TTRPGs forever."
So if you take a Battlemaster Fighter and an Echo Knight Fighter and swap them out you don’t think anyone will notice? So you go from one guy tripping opponents, goading opponents to another guy teleporting around the battlefield with a misty version of themselves and no difference whatsoever?
If you are just referring to the core class I can see what you mean, but subclasses are part of 5E’s class system. Personally I would be fine if fighters all had superiority dice and maneuvers for customization or classes used something like Hunter Rangers pick an option out of 3, or 5?, or 10? options at X, Y, and Z level. I like customizability. But you still have the classes
A classless system that resembled D&D can exist. Whether a classless D&D can exist is more or less a political question: are people willing to call the result D&D.
A classless system that resembled D&D can exist. Whether a classless D&D can exist is more or less a political question: are people willing to call the result D&D.
I think an important question is if WotC decided to go that route could they actually pull it off? I mean look at the feat system. You have a select few feats the a lot of people take, you have a select few that hardly anyone takes, and a majority of the feats in the middle that get so-so use. Could WotC do classless without it coming down to 90% select all the same abilities? I have never played a classless TTRPG so I’m sure there are balanced ones out there. But they are not WotC, unless WotC recruited these designers for such a classless D&D
One thing I do not understand is why there seems to be such an issue of pride over continuing to call the classless creation D&D. Isn't the point to come up with a set of game mechanics that they like better? Why is the need to continue calling it D&D seemingly a requirement to the degree that if anyone suggests it should be called someone else, they are thereby somehow tossing insults?
Or if you went over to a classless TTRPG’s forums and started a “why not add classes to this game” thread would you not receive the same “go play some other game” grognard response?
Having played and run a completely classless, points based system (Champions), I would say that the biggest advantage to a class system is that it makes balancing a lot easier. In a purely freeform system, balancing is a lot harder and the GM has to be much more hands on with respect to policing character design. That actually steps on player egos more rather than less. In a class based system, players may complain about restrictions, but the DM can at least point to the rules and say 'Those are the rules.'
In a freeform system, the GM has to take that hit directly, since what is and is not allowable is on them. Either way, there will always be players who will try to game the rules and emphasise that over actual in character game play.
I think it depends on what you mean by balancing.
If it is balancing between players, I can see freeform systems might have an issue with that if the style of the campaign is not communicated clearly, where some players build more towards combat while others build more towards non combat scenarios. However, in a freeform system that allows players to swap out options, I think this will be much less of an issue so players can respec their character mid campaign if they find their current character's build to be less than satisfactory.
If it is balancing an encounter's difficulty relative to the party, I do not think that is an issue. GMs can adjust HP of monsters or an obstacle's DC, and in worse case scenario, fudging dice or just narrating deus-ex-machina are also options.
It does depend on who you ask, but if you take out classes, the six stats and/or the core races you can find quite a lot of other fantasy TTRPGs that fit the mold. Maybe for you the six stats are all that's needed to make the game recognizeable as D&D, maybe you don't need even that and it's more of a nebulous feel, or maybe it's something else entirely that wouldn't even cross my mind. All of which is fine, but I think that for a majority of players there are a few key elements that make D&D D&D in a sea of other fantasy games and that classes (not just there being classes, but there being a number of specific ones) are usually one of them.
I cannot say for TTRPGs, but a lot of videogames have classes, stats, and common fantasy races, so if D&D is a videogame, it is far from unique.
Fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are not exclusive to D&D, and plenty of games offer those and more; the names and exact mechanics might be different, but the aesthetics and role are the same. Similarly, human, elves, dwarves, gnomes, goblins, orcs, etc. are all pretty generic and most fantasy videogames have them. How games display and use stats will generally be unique, but the idea of stats itself does not set D&D apart, and I do not think anyone would consider D&D's various game mechanic formulas to be a central part of D&D identity. So yeah, for me, what makes D&D D&D has less to do with mechanics and more to do with branding, setting, and story telling.
I have played Fire Emblem for well over fifteen years now since it arrived in the West. The videogame series have been through a lot of changes, and while the core mechanics have largely stayed the same (permanent death, weapon triangle, weapon durability, classes, promotion, character support, avatars, and now also date sim for the latest games), Fire Emblem does not need those mechanics to be Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem can remove many or all of those mechanics, and as long as the branding is still there and it is a TBS game, I would still consider it Fire Emblem. That being said, there are Fire Emblem grognards out there who prefer old games and dislike new ones because they do not feel traditional enough, but those are a minority.
As for whether the class system is core to D&D, it depends on who you ask. I do not find classes to be central to D&D at all, and the game will still be recognizable to people if the system went classless.
Recognisable as being related to something isn't the same thing as being that thing. For pretty much anyone who hasn't played D&D or has only played it a bit, they almost certainly wouldn't recognise D&D if it has no classes - classes is one of the most well known things about D&D. It's certainly the only thing that I knew about it for many years - and a vague feeling that it had something to do with dice. Even for many people who have played it a significant amount, classes play a significant enough role in their experience that they consider it an integral part of the game.
If you don't like classes (for whatever reason), it makes sense that you wouldn't consider the two as being inseparably married. But I think a large majority of people would consider a game without classes of some kind to be at most D&D inspired(ish). Certainly, if 2024e were to abolish classes, I'd considered it a different game to what I have at the moment that just happens to be compatible.
As someone who only started D&D relatively recently about two or three years ago, I can confidently say that what makes D&D recognizable to the average person who have not played D&D before are its name sake dungeons and dragons. LMOP got both, and I was not disappointed. Having swordsmen and magic users are also expected, but I do not think having them mechanically distinct as fighter and wizard classes is what makes D&D recognizable.
And yes, I know the classic refrain - "just go play that, then!" That's always the dismissal, "play something else, play something else, play something else!" The "shut up, go away, and leave D&D alone!"
Yurei, aside from the tone of any suggestion made - what's the alternative here? What situation are we talking about and what would be the proper approach?
Honestly, if Wizards just gives us a custom class template like custom lineage, I will be pretty happy and satisfied. The easiest and laziest alternative I can think of is to let blank classes grab a feat/epic boon/dark gift/piety/etc. every other level, and the levels between feat levels can be more mundane like picking between various proficiencies that normal classes get at level 1 or more spells and spell slots for magic users. Players who want to keep the class system can still do so, but players who want a more free form class system will at least have something to use.
What about an option where every time you gain a subclass feature, there's 4-5 to pick from and you can only have one? I kind of lean towards wanting that and a few subclasses already have some features that operate this way. It would give a bunch of options to make even subclasses unique. One could end up with 2 Life Clerics in the party, with distinctly different approaches and skillsets to tackling issues. It would merge some existing subclasses, putting the unique features to each in selectable points,(example might be Swords and Valor Bard merging, with the subclass features being options) This would also allow for a more interesting concoction of blending subclasses where folks see some features as nice and others within that subclass as a waste, while another subclass has something they'd like and/or would fit thematically with their character concept.
I'm not a fan of scrapping levels, due to, as mentioned, the balancing and measuring it allows. The levels gives one an idea of what the character (or monster) should be capable of doing or having done to it, as the case may warrant. Making fewer subclasses, with more options at subclass feature levels would open he gates to a lot more variety.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
People say "Play something else" because the argument you're making is that D&D and the core parts of it are bad. If you don't like it, don't play it. I disagree entirely that classes are not one of the most well known parts of D&D. People being wizards and fighters and killing dragons is what everyone I've ever talked to about D&D knows about it. There are things in D&D that need work, and I have no problem pointing those things out or with other people pointing them out. But when the idea's pitched to remove things that have been integral to the game for nearly 50 years, its not ridiculous to point out that games like that already exist.
ETA: Literally nothing about this is objectively bad. It is bad in your subjective opinion. I, and many other people, very much enjoy the class system.
Yurei, aside from the tone of any suggestion made - what's the alternative here? What situation are we talking about and what would be the proper approach?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"D&D classes are bad" is a subjective claim. Many many people enjoy playing their D&D classes just fine. Maybe some people can appreciate the intellectual ttrpg gaming theory argument that D&D is bad but at that point you might as well be a radical marxist intellectual teaching class consciousness. You may be right, but the claim isn't really moving anyone. "No, D&D is doing you wrong, it's the system see. There are better ways!"
But, despite some of the discussions' tenor on this board at times, we're talking about fun and not really arguing the world. So the enlightened critical perspective against standard D&D is pretty epiphenomenal to the bulk of people playing the game. Yes there are flaws in D&D, flaws that frustrate some minds who take the game seriously, that is a truth. But people enjoy playing the classes as presented is also a truth.
For what it's worth the algorithm cycled through an archive of classless D&D content for about two days when this thread started and I engaged it when it first started, the revolution wasn't televised, though the movement did get some clicks.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The answer is incredibly simple.
Don't tell someone to stop playing D&D just because they may not like a given aspect of it.
There's a lot of D&D in D&D. The game is pretty stonking huge at this point, everybody's in it for different reasons. Dismissing somebody's concerns, saying 'well that's just the way D&D is so if you don't like it then you don't deserve to play it, kthxbai" is incredibly uncool. You may not agree with the change proposed. A lot of people don't agree with the idea of classless D&D, and even I know it's never gonna happen.
But when somebody pines for a D&D where every last single fighter is not completely identical to every other fighter? When somebody would like a game where you cannot, in fact, pluck two level 5 fighters from any two D&D games, switch them around, and be almost entirely assured that absolutely nobody will notice? Maybe hear them out. Engage in the discussion, see if there's another avenue that can be taken somewhere between "sure let's do it" and "no, and also stop playing TTRPGs forever."
Please do not contact or message me.
Discussing issues with a games mechanics isn’t a problem. And looking at Game 1 and Game 2 and taking what each does well and making Game 3 is fine. But I think that is the point! It is now Game 3. It is no longer Game 1 or Game 2, even though they share similar features. It’s not Game 1+ so Game 3 might be a better game for some players but others liked Game 1 despite it’s flaws, or did not even see them as flaws. That’s why there are so many RPG options out there to fit different players tastes.
Similar to the Thief 4 video game. It had the name but not the feel like Thief:Dark Project.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I've yet to see anyone say "You don't play D&D the way I do, so your not allowed to play it". I'm sure they exist, somewhere on the interwebz. At some point. I...just haven't seen it, and saying people on this thread are saying it is...disingenuous.
If I have a car, and Bob comes along and decides that it isn't as agile more fuel efficient as he'd like, so he strips the frame down, takes off two wheels, puts a smaller engine in, takes away all but one of the seats and takes off the seatbelts, it's not "gatekeeping" to say it's not a car anymore. It's a bike. Maybe the bike is better for Bob. Heck, maybe it's even better for me. It's still not a car.
You want to change the system? Crack on, I don't care. You want to change it beyond all reconisability? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But at some point, your car is going to become a bike. If you remove classes, the six ability scores, the skill system and levels, what you have left is...the lore. Maybe some disagree, but I don't think of the lore as being what D&D boils down to. Hence why Forgotten Realms and Eberron are both equally valid D&D.
You want to shake how the class system a bit? Go ahead, I'll be open to it. Convince me it's better and I'll even support you. I'm not married to how it is done at the moment. But when people are saying that taking a core feature of the system is changing a game so fundamentally that the name stops being a name of the game and purely a name of a company or franchise...that's a valid opinion, and no amount of name calling changes that. I don't know how far D&D could change before I stop thinking about it as D&D and start thinking about it as another game, but there is a limit. Levels are a central part of D&D's identity, just as much as warp and phasers are a part of Star Trek's.
And speaking of name calling, refraining from name calling when people disagree with would make this forum a bit more pleasant to frequent.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, sure, but the - possibly mistaken - impression I got was that this was about changing the D&D ruleset, or transplanting a setting and/or campaign created for D&D onto a different system. In which case it's pretty much an instance of a rose by any other name. Is it important that this other game would nominally still be D&D instead of Awesome Ed's Awesome Classless Fantasy Extravaganza?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So if you take a Battlemaster Fighter and an Echo Knight Fighter and swap them out you don’t think anyone will notice? So you go from one guy tripping opponents, goading opponents to another guy teleporting around the battlefield with a misty version of themselves and no difference whatsoever?
If you are just referring to the core class I can see what you mean, but subclasses are part of 5E’s class system. Personally I would be fine if fighters all had superiority dice and maneuvers for customization or classes used something like Hunter Rangers pick an option out of 3, or 5?, or 10? options at X, Y, and Z level. I like customizability. But you still have the classes
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A classless system that resembled D&D can exist. Whether a classless D&D can exist is more or less a political question: are people willing to call the result D&D.
I think an important question is if WotC decided to go that route could they actually pull it off? I mean look at the feat system. You have a select few feats the a lot of people take, you have a select few that hardly anyone takes, and a majority of the feats in the middle that get so-so use.
Could WotC do classless without it coming down to 90% select all the same abilities? I have never played a classless TTRPG so I’m sure there are balanced ones out there. But they are not WotC, unless WotC recruited these designers for such a classless D&D
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A classless D&D wouldn’t be D&D anymore. It’d be something else. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it just wouldn’t be D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Or if you went over to a classless TTRPG’s forums and started a “why not add classes to this game” thread would you not receive the same “go play some other game” grognard response?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think it depends on what you mean by balancing.
If it is balancing between players, I can see freeform systems might have an issue with that if the style of the campaign is not communicated clearly, where some players build more towards combat while others build more towards non combat scenarios. However, in a freeform system that allows players to swap out options, I think this will be much less of an issue so players can respec their character mid campaign if they find their current character's build to be less than satisfactory.
If it is balancing an encounter's difficulty relative to the party, I do not think that is an issue. GMs can adjust HP of monsters or an obstacle's DC, and in worse case scenario, fudging dice or just narrating deus-ex-machina are also options.
I cannot say for TTRPGs, but a lot of videogames have classes, stats, and common fantasy races, so if D&D is a videogame, it is far from unique.
Fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard are not exclusive to D&D, and plenty of games offer those and more; the names and exact mechanics might be different, but the aesthetics and role are the same. Similarly, human, elves, dwarves, gnomes, goblins, orcs, etc. are all pretty generic and most fantasy videogames have them. How games display and use stats will generally be unique, but the idea of stats itself does not set D&D apart, and I do not think anyone would consider D&D's various game mechanic formulas to be a central part of D&D identity. So yeah, for me, what makes D&D D&D has less to do with mechanics and more to do with branding, setting, and story telling.
I have played Fire Emblem for well over fifteen years now since it arrived in the West. The videogame series have been through a lot of changes, and while the core mechanics have largely stayed the same (permanent death, weapon triangle, weapon durability, classes, promotion, character support, avatars, and now also date sim for the latest games), Fire Emblem does not need those mechanics to be Fire Emblem. Fire Emblem can remove many or all of those mechanics, and as long as the branding is still there and it is a TBS game, I would still consider it Fire Emblem. That being said, there are Fire Emblem grognards out there who prefer old games and dislike new ones because they do not feel traditional enough, but those are a minority.
As someone who only started D&D relatively recently about two or three years ago, I can confidently say that what makes D&D recognizable to the average person who have not played D&D before are its name sake dungeons and dragons. LMOP got both, and I was not disappointed. Having swordsmen and magic users are also expected, but I do not think having them mechanically distinct as fighter and wizard classes is what makes D&D recognizable.
Honestly, if Wizards just gives us a custom class template like custom lineage, I will be pretty happy and satisfied. The easiest and laziest alternative I can think of is to let blank classes grab a feat/epic boon/dark gift/piety/etc. every other level, and the levels between feat levels can be more mundane like picking between various proficiencies that normal classes get at level 1 or more spells and spell slots for magic users. Players who want to keep the class system can still do so, but players who want a more free form class system will at least have something to use.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >