The only ones you really CAN’T get rid of are Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric: the classics. The rest are give or take.
Cleric and Wizard can be merged if you ask me (thus my above comment on warrior/expert/spellcaster). Personally I feel like the rules defining different sources of magic take away a lot of the mystique of faith and religion. Nothing like two "spellcasters" arguing if their power comes from gods or from the power of their own mind. That debate sort of falls flat with the current standard setup :)
I thought about it, prepared to, and then completely forgot while making it. :/
But yeah I can see a lot of people wanting one in the core PHB as it's more unique than some of the options there.
I foresee:
Between 5e and 6e Wizards (after Hasbro is acquired by Disney) will publish Wanda Maximoff's Whispered Worldbook, a sort of "hinge" and "glimpse" book to show 5e players where 6e is going and to be the last of the supplemental retconning compendiums. In addition to fixing the Ranger and the Sorcerer, there will be page simply prophesizing "No more mutants psychics." But folks, giving the Beastmaster Wildshape and the Sorcerer the ability to "build up" or "charge" itself with magical energy over time (with a heightened wild magic risk), that's more a win than a wash.
I'm just trolling Iamsposta. No real wild shape in this fight.
I agree stripped down core classes Fighter, Cleric (with divine and communal/druidic features and spells umbrellas), Rogue (with other wiles and clever reliants like Bards subbed), and Arcane/Magic Users (with learned/imbued/pact granted spell casting umbrellas) may be a start. Rangers are fighters branched with druidic magic users. Palladins are basically fighter/clerics. Bards are rogues that touch on a number of classes. Barbarians and Monks are fighters who are imbued with different forms of communal magic.
I didn't think I had an opinion, but then you left out Paladin.
I like the opportunity to play a magical tank.
But then again, one thing 6e should probably improve is multiclassing, to make it a more viable option. If instead of picking a paladin I could multiclass in fighter and cleric without becoming underpowered, we could reduce the number of fundamental classes. I could even imagine as few as four classes, and everything else is multiclassing.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
Warlock = Rogue Wizard
Paladin = Fighter Cleric
Monk = Fighter Cleric, just different background
Barbarian = Fighter, just different background
Ranger = Rogue Fighter
Druid = Ranger Wizard = Rogue Fighter Wizard
Bard = Rogue Cleric (*hear me out)
Sorcerer = Bard Wizard = Rogue Cleric Wizard
*Bards and clerics are opposite in terms of their chastity, but they share a mission of spreading their fame throughout the world and persuading people to worship and adore them.
I'd rename Fighter to Warrior. It probably will never happen due to nostalgia, but warrior just makes much more sense.
In paper pamphlet rules, the class was called Warrior. Then in 1e they changed it to Fighting Man. Then in 1e AD&D they changed it to Fighter. It just kind of stuck from there.
HAHA! I'm totally kidding. Except for the Fighting Man thing. That was real.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I was tough between Paladin and Warlord for me, as Paladin is a classic. But I almost think that the half casters should come in a later book alone so they can be given the focus they need.
I've never thought of the half casters as just a multiclass between the full caster similar themed class, and a martial. They're their own unique thing. They're not just half a caster one turn and half a fighter the next. They blend magic and combat (or skills in the artificer case) into a single thing. The 5e Paladin does this perfectly. Its divine smite class feature and many of its spells are really suited to being a divine melee combatant, rather than just a fighter who can do some healing.
But yeah multiclassing really needs improving in 6e. In 5e it's simply awful and feels like a glued on afterthought.
I didn't think I had an opinion, but then you left out Paladin.
I like the opportunity to play a magical tank.
But then again, one thing 6e should probably improve is multiclassing, to make it a more viable option. If instead of picking a paladin I could multiclass in fighter and cleric without becoming underpowered, we could reduce the number of fundamental classes. I could even imagine as few as four classes, and everything else is multiclassing.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
Warlock = Rogue Wizard
Paladin = Fighter Cleric
Monk = Fighter Cleric, just different background
Barbarian = Fighter, just different background
Ranger = Rogue Fighter
Druid = Ranger Wizard = Rogue Fighter Wizard
Bard = Rogue Cleric (*hear me out)
Sorcerer = Bard Wizard = Rogue Cleric Wizard
*Bards and clerics are opposite in terms of their chastity, but they share a mission of spreading their fame throughout the world and persuading people to worship and adore them.
Nope, that won’t work. Druid is more like it’s own side-version of Cleric + Wizard. Fighter + Rogue has to be Monk or something, hold up, try this out:
Martial
Fighter
Barbarian
Expert
Rogue
Engineer
Arcane
Wizard
Sorcerer
Divine
Cleric
Druid
Rogue + Cleric = Warlock
Rogue + Sorcerer = Bard
Engineer + Wizard = Artificer
Engineer + Barbarian = Demolitionist
Fighter + Cleric = Paladin
Fighter + Druid = Ranger
Barbarian + Cleric = Zealot
Barbarian + Druid = Shaman
Etc.
Etc.
So you make 4 Classes, each with 2 Subclasses, and designate the specific MCs as the other stuff. That’s 64 different options in 4 classes.
I'd rename Fighter to Warrior. It probably will never happen due to nostalgia, but warrior just makes much more sense.
In paper pamphlet rules, the class was called Warrior. Then in 1e they changed it to Fighting Man. Then in 1e AD&D they changed it to Fighter. It just kind of stuck from there.
HAHA! I'm totally kidding. Except for the Fighting Man thing. That was real.
I knew about the "Fighting Man," which is somehow even derpier than fighter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
If I was going for a super cut down people like some people are suggesting, I'd probably go for these 'template' classes, with the bracketed classes as subclasses:
I like Cleric / Wizard for Druid. Druid has a mix of so-called “white” and “black” magic: a mix of mother nature’s healing and sky father’s vengeance.
And Fighter Rogue is good for Monk.
Ranger as Druid Fighter becomes Fighter Cleric Wizard.
But maybe there are even different ways to build the traditional classes, and you get a slightly different outcome. Like Fighter Cleric Wizard and Fighter Rogue are both rangers, but differently optimized builds.
If I was going for a super cut down people like some people are suggesting, I'd probably go for these 'template' classes, with the bracketed classes as subclasses:
You know, Cleric + Wizard = Druid was my first instinct, but then it required that kind of trippleclassing and I wanted to specifically avoid that. A slight shift corrected that, and simultaneously brought it more inline with the older systems it actually emulates.
I was tough between Paladin and Warlord for me, as Paladin is a classic. But I almost think that the half casters should come in a later book alone so they can be given the focus they need.
I've never thought of the half casters as just a multiclass between the full caster similar themed class, and a martial. They're their own unique thing. They're not just half a caster one turn and half a fighter the next. They blend magic and combat (or skills in the artificer case) into a single thing. The 5e Paladin does this perfectly. Its divine smite class feature and many of its spells are really suited to being a divine melee combatant, rather than just a fighter who can do some healing.
But yeah multiclassing really needs improving in 6e. In 5e it's simply awful and feels like a glued on afterthought.
5E multiclassing is both better and more thought through than any previous edition’s. I can see arguments why people may not like it regardless, I really do, but it’s not an ill-conceived afterthought.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not saying I want them gone, I'm just saying I would not be upset if I don't have to pay for something I don't find interesting (Bards and Barbarians).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think multi classing in 5e was done so to make it more accessible and less labor intensive than prior editions, part of the whole streamlined but player enabling drive.
My take on the stripped down to four core classes is that each class would have numerous options to either fortify or branch out from those cores. Even some key choices early on, for example "divine" vs. "communal" spell origin will determine the difference between a traditional cleric vs a druid or something akin to a shaman. So while my thinking may seem reduced it's more to allow for each class to contain all sorts of permutations within it to actually give players more options than the present class array in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm not saying I want them gone, I'm just saying I would not be upset if I don't have to pay for something I don't find interesting (Bards and Barbarians).
Well then we could drop Druids and Barbarians and Rangers, but that wouldn’t be fair to everyone.
Cleric and Wizard can be merged if you ask me (thus my above comment on warrior/expert/spellcaster). Personally I feel like the rules defining different sources of magic take away a lot of the mystique of faith and religion. Nothing like two "spellcasters" arguing if their power comes from gods or from the power of their own mind. That debate sort of falls flat with the current standard setup :)
One presumes that’s what Multiclassing would be for in this system.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
😝
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I didn't think I had an opinion, but then you left out Paladin.
I like the opportunity to play a magical tank.
But then again, one thing 6e should probably improve is multiclassing, to make it a more viable option. If instead of picking a paladin I could multiclass in fighter and cleric without becoming underpowered, we could reduce the number of fundamental classes. I could even imagine as few as four classes, and everything else is multiclassing.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
Warlock = Rogue Wizard
Paladin = Fighter Cleric
Monk = Fighter Cleric, just different background
Barbarian = Fighter, just different background
Ranger = Rogue Fighter
Druid = Ranger Wizard = Rogue Fighter Wizard
Bard = Rogue Cleric (*hear me out)
Sorcerer = Bard Wizard = Rogue Cleric Wizard
*Bards and clerics are opposite in terms of their chastity, but they share a mission of spreading their fame throughout the world and persuading people to worship and adore them.
In paper pamphlet rules, the class was called Warrior. Then in 1e they changed it to Fighting Man. Then in 1e AD&D they changed it to Fighter. It just kind of stuck from there.
HAHA! I'm totally kidding. Except for the Fighting Man thing. That was real.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I was tough between Paladin and Warlord for me, as Paladin is a classic. But I almost think that the half casters should come in a later book alone so they can be given the focus they need.
I've never thought of the half casters as just a multiclass between the full caster similar themed class, and a martial. They're their own unique thing. They're not just half a caster one turn and half a fighter the next. They blend magic and combat (or skills in the artificer case) into a single thing. The 5e Paladin does this perfectly. Its divine smite class feature and many of its spells are really suited to being a divine melee combatant, rather than just a fighter who can do some healing.
But yeah multiclassing really needs improving in 6e. In 5e it's simply awful and feels like a glued on afterthought.
Nope, that won’t work. Druid is more like it’s own side-version of Cleric + Wizard. Fighter + Rogue has to be Monk or something, hold up, try this out:
So you make 4 Classes, each with 2 Subclasses, and designate the specific MCs as the other stuff. That’s 64 different options in 4 classes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I knew about the "Fighting Man," which is somehow even derpier than fighter.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
If I was going for a super cut down people like some people are suggesting, I'd probably go for these 'template' classes, with the bracketed classes as subclasses:
- Fighter (fighter, barbarian, monk, warlord)
- Expert (rogue, alchemist, swashbuckler)
- Caster (wizard, sorcerer, warlock, druid, cleric, bard, psion)
- Half Caster (paladin, ranger, artificer, swordmage)
I like Cleric / Wizard for Druid. Druid has a mix of so-called “white” and “black” magic: a mix of mother nature’s healing and sky father’s vengeance.
And Fighter Rogue is good for Monk.
Ranger as Druid Fighter becomes Fighter Cleric Wizard.
But maybe there are even different ways to build the traditional classes, and you get a slightly different outcome. Like Fighter Cleric Wizard and Fighter Rogue are both rangers, but differently optimized builds.
I would make monks half-casters.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You know, Cleric + Wizard = Druid was my first instinct, but then it required that kind of trippleclassing and I wanted to specifically avoid that. A slight shift corrected that, and simultaneously brought it more inline with the older systems it actually emulates.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
White mage, black mage, red mage, dragoon- is immediately shot
5E multiclassing is both better and more thought through than any previous edition’s. I can see arguments why people may not like it regardless, I really do, but it’s not an ill-conceived afterthought.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Psionicist
Shaman
Swordmage/Duskblade/Arcane-Fighty-Halfcaster
Warlord
Everything listed above (but I would not cry if the next edition erases Bards or Barbarians)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Are we to assume there is a white moon, black moon, and red moon as well?
Holy moly. Those guys are all Druids!
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Not mah Bahds!
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not saying I want them gone, I'm just saying I would not be upset if I don't have to pay for something I don't find interesting (Bards and Barbarians).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think multi classing in 5e was done so to make it more accessible and less labor intensive than prior editions, part of the whole streamlined but player enabling drive.
My take on the stripped down to four core classes is that each class would have numerous options to either fortify or branch out from those cores. Even some key choices early on, for example "divine" vs. "communal" spell origin will determine the difference between a traditional cleric vs a druid or something akin to a shaman. So while my thinking may seem reduced it's more to allow for each class to contain all sorts of permutations within it to actually give players more options than the present class array in 5e.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Well then we could drop Druids and Barbarians and Rangers, but that wouldn’t be fair to everyone.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting