I think you might be able to boil down all the classes to just the original 4 (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard). Here's my reasoning:
Barbarian: Just a really angry fighter-- the only important thing that would be missing is Unarmored Defense, but you can always wear hide armor for that barbarian feel.
Bard: Originally, a Bard was Fighter 5/Druid 5/Rogue 5, but you could just go Arcane Trickster for a mischievous, charismatic support magic-maker and skill monkey.
Druid: Just be a Nature Cleric.
Monk: This is one of the hardest ones to eliminate, but I think Rogue/Cleric multiclass (wielding dual shortswords or daggers) could do the trick.
Paladin: As much as I love the paladin, you might as well be a War Cleric, Eldritch Knight, or Fighter/Cleric multiclass.
Ranger: Scout Rogue or Fighter/Nature Cleric for the druidic nature explorer feel, or Arcane Archer for the "has magic and uses bows" feel. Or a DEX-based bow-wielding Eldritch Knight.
Sorcerer: Just be a naturally talented Harry Potter-like wizard.
And finally, Warlock: Most patrons are also feasible cleric gods (for example, Lolth is also a goddess, and Ghaunadar is considered a War Cleric patron.)
While I think this is an interesting thought experiment my only question is why?
I have always believed that more options are better (players will never typically enjoy being limited in any way especially the more experienced they get with the game) and there is a lot of class fantasy things that have real in game mechanics that you get rid of by doing this most of them are their main mechanics.
Barbarian - Rage is a huge deal (advantage on Str checks, Bonus damage), Reckless swings is the easiest access to advantage in the game and saying that barbarian is just angry fighter shows some ignorance in the origin of the fantasy of the class
Bard - Sure at one point in bards life in dnd it was basically Fighter 5/Druid 5/Rogue 5 which even going by you post would be Fighter 5/Cleric 5/Rogue 5 since you have druid as a thing that doesn't need to exist. Anyways like Barbarian you are neglecting anything that isn't a skill or spell that sets Bard apart from all other clases
Druid: Nature cleric is awful as a subclass, Nothing else in the game gets something built in like wildshape and their spell while divine in origin come from a source other that a defined god typically
Monk: Just going to say KI =/= spells and only kinda does on 4 elements monk
Paladin: Your opinion lacks Auras and other passive supporting features that Paladin brings also smites make paladins a damage dealer that burns bright for a short time before dropping into a fighter role later.
Ranger: Well known ranger has issues and scout rouge does encroach on it's space but if your DM takes survival and over world traveling as a serious thing having a ranger is fantastic.
Sorcerer: Wizards are multirole intense study based caster that have come to magic by learning, they can do a bit of everything. Sorcerer it is in their blood and is part of them, often focuses on one - two elements for their entire existence. Good example is wizard is Harry Potter sorcerer is Xmen Storm(storm sorcerer).
Warlock: Warlocks entire power origin is different then clerics, Often times it is played wrong as with warlocks they are often beholden to the whims of their patron and either have had to bargain away something significant or have had the power forced on them and are now paying the consequences.
While I think this is an interesting thought experiment my only question is why?
I have always believed that more options are better (players will never typically enjoy being limited in any way especially the more experienced they get with the game) and there is a lot of class fantasy things that have real in game mechanics that you get rid of by doing this most of them are their main mechanics.
Barbarian - Rage is a huge deal (advantage on Str checks, Bonus damage), Reckless swings is the easiest access to advantage in the game and saying that barbarian is just angry fighter shows some ignorance in the origin of the fantasy of the class
Bard - Sure at one point in bards life in dnd it was basically Fighter 5/Druid 5/Rogue 5 which even going by you post would be Fighter 5/Cleric 5/Rogue 5 since you have druid as a thing that doesn't need to exist. Anyways like Barbarian you are neglecting anything that isn't a skill or spell that sets Bard apart from all other clases
Druid: Nature cleric is awful as a subclass, Nothing else in the game gets something built in like wildshape and their spell while divine in origin come from a source other that a defined god typically
Monk: Just going to say KI =/= spells and only kinda does on 4 elements monk
Paladin: Your opinion lacks Auras and other passive supporting features that Paladin brings also smites make paladins a damage dealer that burns bright for a short time before dropping into a fighter role later.
Ranger: Well known ranger has issues and scout rouge does encroach on it's space but if your DM takes survival and over world traveling as a serious thing having a ranger is fantastic.
Sorcerer: Wizards are multirole intense study based caster that have come to magic by learning, they can do a bit of everything. Sorcerer it is in their blood and is part of them, often focuses on one - two elements for their entire existence. Good example is wizard is Harry Potter sorcerer is Xmen Storm(storm sorcerer).
Warlock: Warlocks entire power origin is different then clerics, Often times it is played wrong as with warlocks they are often beholden to the whims of their patron and either have had to bargain away something significant or have had the power forced on them and are now paying the consequences.
Barbarians are different from fighters, however they originated as a subclass of Fighter and I'm talking about how you play your character, not necessarily the mechanical features.
As I'm not talking about every single mechanical feature, I'm considering Arcane Trickster an adequate Bard replacement (or you could do a Wizard focused on enchantment and illusion if you wanted to be a full caster, but anyways) because it focuses on enchantment and illusion spells, has the same weapon proficiencies as a bard, has some focus on trickery and mischief, and has lots of skills and abilities enhancing them (aka a "skill monkey".)
It's stated in Xanathar's Guide to Everything that you don't have to be devoted to a god and it can be a divine force instead as a cleric, so why not the divine force of nature? Also, as I've said, you won't have every single mechanical feature, but you will still get a WIS-based caster devoted to nature using spells that reflect that.
Ki =/= spells, but I just wanted to be somewhat more creative than full Rogue, however a Rogue with WIS as a secondary stat, more knowledge and acrobatic-focused skills, and dual shortswords, daggers, or a quarterstaff could be an adequate replacement-- Rogues and Monks share many features, like Evasion, and things like Sneak Attack could be reflavoured as channeling Ki-- the Assasinate ability has always made me think of Ty Lee disabling people's Ki, if you've seen Avatar (the Last Airbender, not the thing w/the blue people.)
You can have Aura and Smite-like spells like Protection From Evil and Good and Protection From Energy as an Eldritch Knight or War Cleric.
Scout rogue gets survival related abilities.
PHB p. 113 says that "having a natural talent" (for the arcane arts) is a viable wizard origin, and I don't see why you couldn't just play that as a sorcerer. I also disagree with your saying that Sorcerers aren't multirole-- one of the most important things about Sorcerers is their versatility with features like Metamagic.
Clerics and Warlocks are barely dissimilar, whatever you say-- the main difference is that Warlocks more often make pacts with devils, fey, etc.
As you said, this is just a thought experiment, and I wouldn't actually want to narrow the game down to only 4 classes.
The entire reason that we even have barbarian and some of these other classes is because the original paradigm proved too vague for most people. Yes, someone could give a depth of customization to a really basic class layout, but it means character creation can take a lot more time and planning than it otherwise would. This got illustrated by all the custom classes people kept cooking up to shortcut the customization process, which eventually lead to what we see today.
The original schemes that people came up with were too ambiguous for most people trying to play the game. Can a Black Mage become some kind of druid, or is that strictly a wizard? Can a white mage become an Arcane Cleric? Wait, isn't that what a Red Mage does? How do I properly construct the bard?
So ultimately, the choice was made to cut the flexibility in favor of hardline classes that we see now. That being said, it means that mistakes in class design are much more prominent and the only way around a design problem is to redo an entire class. Since the other classes are basically balanced around each other, this leads to a chain reaction when one class isn't balanced properly or has issues such as the ranger.
I mean, at this rate I feel like the best way to fix Ranger is to get rid of the class entirely, smash together druid and fighter, scrap the beastmaster thing and just give them conjure animal with a perk or something to call it a day. That class is so broken on a fundamental design level that it's a novelty class.
The entire reason that we even have barbarian and some of these other classes is because the original paradigm proved too vague for most people. Yes, someone could give a depth of customization to a really basic class layout, but it means character creation can take a lot more time and planning than it otherwise would. This got illustrated by all the custom classes people kept cooking up to shortcut the customization process, which eventually lead to what we see today.
The original schemes that people came up with were too ambiguous for most people trying to play the game. Can a Black Mage become some kind of druid, or is that strictly a wizard? Can a white mage become an Arcane Cleric? Wait, isn't that what a Red Mage does? How do I properly construct the bard?
So ultimately, the choice was made to cut the flexibility in favor of hardline classes that we see now. That being said, it means that mistakes in class design are much more prominent and the only way around a design problem is to redo an entire class. Since the other classes are basically balanced around each other, this leads to a chain reaction when one class isn't balanced properly or has issues such as the ranger.
I mean, at this rate I feel like the best way to fix Ranger is to get rid of the class entirely, smash together druid and fighter, scrap the beastmaster thing and just give them conjure animal with a perk or something to call it a day. That class is so broken on a fundamental design level that it's a novelty class.
I’m not rooting for the removal of classes, I’m just showing how all classes come from the original 4.
That diagram is somewhat incorrect-- Bards are definitely not Divine or Nature, Rogues probably overlap into Nature, Sorcerers can be Divine (Divine Soul origin), Monks aren't Arcane or City, etc.
I do agree with you about Ranger though. It’s just pretty weak. Favoured Enemy and Natural Explorer are just objectively terrible. You could just have some sort of nature magic-related Fighter subclass like an Eldritch Knight using the Druid list, or a Bladesinger/War Cleric/Valor or Swords Bard-like martial Druid subclass.
I think you might be able to boil down all the classes to just the original 4 (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard). Here's my reasoning:
Barbarian: Just a really angry fighter-- the only important thing that would be missing is Unarmored Defense, but you can always wear hide armor for that barbarian feel.
Bard: Originally, a Bard was Fighter 5/Druid 5/Rogue 5, but you could just go Arcane Trickster for a mischievous, charismatic support magic-maker and skill monkey.
Druid: Just be a Nature Cleric.
Monk: This is one of the hardest ones to eliminate, but I think Rogue/Cleric multiclass (wielding dual shortswords or daggers) could do the trick.
Paladin: As much as I love the paladin, you might as well be a War Cleric, Eldritch Knight, or Fighter/Cleric multiclass.
Ranger: Scout Rogue or Fighter/Nature Cleric for the druidic nature explorer feel, or Arcane Archer for the "has magic and uses bows" feel. Or a DEX-based bow-wielding Eldritch Knight.
Sorcerer: Just be a naturally talented Harry Potter-like wizard.
And finally, Warlock: Most patrons are also feasible cleric gods (for example, Lolth is also a goddess, and Ghaunadar is considered a War Cleric patron.)
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
While I think this is an interesting thought experiment my only question is why?
I have always believed that more options are better (players will never typically enjoy being limited in any way especially the more experienced they get with the game) and there is a lot of class fantasy things that have real in game mechanics that you get rid of by doing this most of them are their main mechanics.
Barbarian - Rage is a huge deal (advantage on Str checks, Bonus damage), Reckless swings is the easiest access to advantage in the game and saying that barbarian is just angry fighter shows some ignorance in the origin of the fantasy of the class
Bard - Sure at one point in bards life in dnd it was basically Fighter 5/Druid 5/Rogue 5 which even going by you post would be Fighter 5/Cleric 5/Rogue 5 since you have druid as a thing that doesn't need to exist. Anyways like Barbarian you are neglecting anything that isn't a skill or spell that sets Bard apart from all other clases
Druid: Nature cleric is awful as a subclass, Nothing else in the game gets something built in like wildshape and their spell while divine in origin come from a source other that a defined god typically
Monk: Just going to say KI =/= spells and only kinda does on 4 elements monk
Paladin: Your opinion lacks Auras and other passive supporting features that Paladin brings also smites make paladins a damage dealer that burns bright for a short time before dropping into a fighter role later.
Ranger: Well known ranger has issues and scout rouge does encroach on it's space but if your DM takes survival and over world traveling as a serious thing having a ranger is fantastic.
Sorcerer: Wizards are multirole intense study based caster that have come to magic by learning, they can do a bit of everything. Sorcerer it is in their blood and is part of them, often focuses on one - two elements for their entire existence. Good example is wizard is Harry Potter sorcerer is Xmen Storm(storm sorcerer).
Warlock: Warlocks entire power origin is different then clerics, Often times it is played wrong as with warlocks they are often beholden to the whims of their patron and either have had to bargain away something significant or have had the power forced on them and are now paying the consequences.
Barbarians are different from fighters, however they originated as a subclass of Fighter and I'm talking about how you play your character, not necessarily the mechanical features.
As I'm not talking about every single mechanical feature, I'm considering Arcane Trickster an adequate Bard replacement (or you could do a Wizard focused on enchantment and illusion if you wanted to be a full caster, but anyways) because it focuses on enchantment and illusion spells, has the same weapon proficiencies as a bard, has some focus on trickery and mischief, and has lots of skills and abilities enhancing them (aka a "skill monkey".)
It's stated in Xanathar's Guide to Everything that you don't have to be devoted to a god and it can be a divine force instead as a cleric, so why not the divine force of nature? Also, as I've said, you won't have every single mechanical feature, but you will still get a WIS-based caster devoted to nature using spells that reflect that.
Ki =/= spells, but I just wanted to be somewhat more creative than full Rogue, however a Rogue with WIS as a secondary stat, more knowledge and acrobatic-focused skills, and dual shortswords, daggers, or a quarterstaff could be an adequate replacement-- Rogues and Monks share many features, like Evasion, and things like Sneak Attack could be reflavoured as channeling Ki-- the Assasinate ability has always made me think of Ty Lee disabling people's Ki, if you've seen Avatar (the Last Airbender, not the thing w/the blue people.)
You can have Aura and Smite-like spells like Protection From Evil and Good and Protection From Energy as an Eldritch Knight or War Cleric.
Scout rogue gets survival related abilities.
PHB p. 113 says that "having a natural talent" (for the arcane arts) is a viable wizard origin, and I don't see why you couldn't just play that as a sorcerer. I also disagree with your saying that Sorcerers aren't multirole-- one of the most important things about Sorcerers is their versatility with features like Metamagic.
Clerics and Warlocks are barely dissimilar, whatever you say-- the main difference is that Warlocks more often make pacts with devils, fey, etc.
As you said, this is just a thought experiment, and I wouldn't actually want to narrow the game down to only 4 classes.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
The entire reason that we even have barbarian and some of these other classes is because the original paradigm proved too vague for most people. Yes, someone could give a depth of customization to a really basic class layout, but it means character creation can take a lot more time and planning than it otherwise would. This got illustrated by all the custom classes people kept cooking up to shortcut the customization process, which eventually lead to what we see today.
Example chart of original classes in 1980 Final Fantasy vs 2010+ 5e DnD
The original schemes that people came up with were too ambiguous for most people trying to play the game. Can a Black Mage become some kind of druid, or is that strictly a wizard? Can a white mage become an Arcane Cleric? Wait, isn't that what a Red Mage does? How do I properly construct the bard?
So ultimately, the choice was made to cut the flexibility in favor of hardline classes that we see now. That being said, it means that mistakes in class design are much more prominent and the only way around a design problem is to redo an entire class. Since the other classes are basically balanced around each other, this leads to a chain reaction when one class isn't balanced properly or has issues such as the ranger.
I mean, at this rate I feel like the best way to fix Ranger is to get rid of the class entirely, smash together druid and fighter, scrap the beastmaster thing and just give them conjure animal with a perk or something to call it a day. That class is so broken on a fundamental design level that it's a novelty class.
I’m not rooting for the removal of classes, I’m just showing how all classes come from the original 4.
That diagram is somewhat incorrect-- Bards are definitely not Divine or Nature, Rogues probably overlap into Nature, Sorcerers can be Divine (Divine Soul origin), Monks aren't Arcane or City, etc.
I do agree with you about Ranger though. It’s just pretty weak. Favoured Enemy and Natural Explorer are just objectively terrible. You could just have some sort of nature magic-related Fighter subclass like an Eldritch Knight using the Druid list, or a Bladesinger/War Cleric/Valor or Swords Bard-like martial Druid subclass.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.