I think anything that appeared as a class in 1E needs to be able to built out of this hypothetical 6E PHB. So Bards definitely stay. Barbarians became an official class in the 1E Unearthed Arcana, but I could drop that but allow rage features as class features that could be built into a class. So Artificer and Warlord and Warlock could get tossed, though features from those classes could be carried within the broad four class system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think anything that appeared as a class in 1E needs to be able to built out of this hypothetical 6E PHB. So Bards definitely stay. Barbarians became an official class in the 1E Unearthed Arcana, but I could drop that but allow rage features as class features that could be built into a class. So Artificer and Warlord and Warlock could get tossed, though features from those classes could be carried within the broad four class system.
Agreed! Weren't Rangers also one of the earlier classes? I know Druids and Paladins were basically subclasses for Cleric and Fighter, so I'd be cool with them too. That's a solid lineup of 8.
To be frank, if it was my Ideal Dnd there wouldn't be a class system at all.
There would be skill trees that all start at the same point and branch and get more complicated as they do. The "Class" would be filled by the player as they fit in with their group. There wouldn't be the stigma of "cleric gotta heal" or "Fighter gotta hit". You spec into holy magic, cool you can choose to spec into healing if you want, or you could speck into damage, or utility or otherwise. You want to go down a nature path? Cool, One of the options you have can be to wild shape, but you could also take an animal companion, be a battle field tactician or some other thing.
Clearly this is a massive shift to the Dnd formula and would probably make it less inviting to players, but you asked what I wanted and this is the way it works in MY 6e.
I like this direction. Rogue/Bard could be one class divided as subclasses. Arcane should be brought together, or at least Wizard/Sorcerer. I would say bump Monk up to a d10, and blend with fighter. Paladins and Rangers could join with Fighters, or be their own "Defenders of the Faith" class. Warlock, Artificer, Barbarian, and Druid strike me as a little to distinct to blend in with others.
To be frank, if it was my Ideal Dnd there wouldn't be a class system at all.
There would be skill trees that all start at the same point and branch and get more complicated as they do. The "Class" would be filled by the player as they fit in with their group. There wouldn't be the stigma of "cleric gotta heal" or "Fighter gotta hit". You spec into holy magic, cool you can choose to spec into healing if you want, or you could speck into damage, or utility or otherwise. You want to go down a nature path? Cool, One of the options you have can be to wild shape, but you could also take an animal companion, be a battle field tactician or some other thing.
Clearly this is a massive shift to the Dnd formula and would probably make it less inviting to players, but you asked what I wanted and this is the way it works in MY 6e.
While I agree with you that classless systems are better, it just wouldn't be D&D anymore. Maybe look into other RPGs? FFG's Star Wars RPG works pretty much the way you're talking about, and it's maybe the best game I've ever played. There's a generic version of it called Genesys if the original theme doesn't grab you.
If it was going to be cut down to just fighter/rogue/caster, then subclasses would need to do an insane amount more than they do now.
So surprised warlord is this unpopular. We have barely any martials as it is, and people are complaining non stop about how skewed towards casters the game is generally.
So surprised warlord is this unpopular. We have barely any martials as it is, and people are complaining non stop about how skewed towards casters the game is generally.
We have barbarians, fighters, monks and rogues, and a bunch of half-casters (which are all half-martials too). I wouldn’t call that “barely”.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To be frank, if it was my Ideal Dnd there wouldn't be a class system at all.
There would be skill trees that all start at the same point and branch and get more complicated as they do. The "Class" would be filled by the player as they fit in with their group. There wouldn't be the stigma of "cleric gotta heal" or "Fighter gotta hit". You spec into holy magic, cool you can choose to spec into healing if you want, or you could speck into damage, or utility or otherwise. You want to go down a nature path? Cool, One of the options you have can be to wild shape, but you could also take an animal companion, be a battle field tactician or some other thing.
Clearly this is a massive shift to the Dnd formula and would probably make it less inviting to players, but you asked what I wanted and this is the way it works in MY 6e.
While I agree with you that classless systems are better, it just wouldn't be D&D anymore. Maybe look into other RPGs? FFG's Star Wars RPG works pretty much the way you're talking about, and it's maybe the best game I've ever played. There's a generic version of it called Genesys if the original theme doesn't grab you.
I'm currently homebrewing the class system enitrely so that classes become more separated from the subclasses (which would provide additional flavour to characters). I like this idea because it means that you can more easily build a variety of character types without feeling that to be super-brawny you have to take levels in the barbarian class.
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 dint see the need for half caster as you can just take some levels in caster and some on other classes to fill that role, say battlemaster11/wizard something 9 in the current 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:
I dint see the need for half caster as you can just take some levels in caster and some on other classes to fill that role, say battlemaster11/wizard something 9 in the current system :)
I think that removing the existing subclasses would take away from the flavour of the game, myself. Keep the classes and subclasses but make them mix and match.
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 dint see the need for half caster as you can just take some levels in caster and some on other classes to fill that role, say battlemaster11/wizard something 9 in the current system :)
How a half caster works is completely different to how a multiclassed half martial half caster works.
If you just take some levels in caster you end up as half a caster one turn and half a martial the next. A paladin isn't just a bad fighter who stops to heal people sometimes. Multiclassing into a caster gets you nothing which lets you blend magic and combat together like a paladin or ranger can.
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 dint see the need for half caster as you can just take some levels in caster and some on other classes to fill that role, say battlemaster11/wizard something 9 in the current system :)
How a half caster works is completely different to how a multiclassed half martial half caster works.
If you just take some levels in caster you end up as half a caster one turn and half a martial the next. A paladin isn't just a bad fighter who stops to heal people sometimes. Multiclassing into a caster gets you nothing which lets you blend magic and combat together like a paladin or ranger can.
The Paladin and Ranger classes both possess some spells that fit their concepts and cannot be found on any other spell list. Although I still don't like paladins, they do have a purpose.
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 dint see the need for half caster as you can just take some levels in caster and some on other classes to fill that role, say battlemaster11/wizard something 9 in the current system :)
How a half caster works is completely different to how a multiclassed half martial half caster works.
If you just take some levels in caster you end up as half a caster one turn and half a martial the next. A paladin isn't just a bad fighter who stops to heal people sometimes. Multiclassing into a caster gets you nothing which lets you blend magic and combat together like a paladin or ranger can.
Not under the current system. But under that system it would have to.
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
I still think that the classes are there for a reason. There's a huge difference between a cleric and a wizard, but they would both be classed as "spellcasters" and this is an issue for me.
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
You presume those spells would exist in that new system. They don’t have to. They didn’t exist in the older editions.
I still think that the classes are there for a reason. There's a huge difference between a cleric and a wizard, but they would both be classed as "spellcasters" and this is an issue for me.
They are currently both classified as “spellcasters.”
Maybe not artificer, but if there was an alchemist class like in pathfinder that would be cool
I think anything that appeared as a class in 1E needs to be able to built out of this hypothetical 6E PHB. So Bards definitely stay. Barbarians became an official class in the 1E Unearthed Arcana, but I could drop that but allow rage features as class features that could be built into a class. So Artificer and Warlord and Warlock could get tossed, though features from those classes could be carried within the broad four class system.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Agreed! Weren't Rangers also one of the earlier classes? I know Druids and Paladins were basically subclasses for Cleric and Fighter, so I'd be cool with them too. That's a solid lineup of 8.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
To be frank, if it was my Ideal Dnd there wouldn't be a class system at all.
There would be skill trees that all start at the same point and branch and get more complicated as they do. The "Class" would be filled by the player as they fit in with their group. There wouldn't be the stigma of "cleric gotta heal" or "Fighter gotta hit". You spec into holy magic, cool you can choose to spec into healing if you want, or you could speck into damage, or utility or otherwise. You want to go down a nature path? Cool, One of the options you have can be to wild shape, but you could also take an animal companion, be a battle field tactician or some other thing.
Clearly this is a massive shift to the Dnd formula and would probably make it less inviting to players, but you asked what I wanted and this is the way it works in MY 6e.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I like this direction. Rogue/Bard could be one class divided as subclasses. Arcane should be brought together, or at least Wizard/Sorcerer. I would say bump Monk up to a d10, and blend with fighter. Paladins and Rangers could join with Fighters, or be their own "Defenders of the Faith" class. Warlock, Artificer, Barbarian, and Druid strike me as a little to distinct to blend in with others.
While I agree with you that classless systems are better, it just wouldn't be D&D anymore. Maybe look into other RPGs? FFG's Star Wars RPG works pretty much the way you're talking about, and it's maybe the best game I've ever played. There's a generic version of it called Genesys if the original theme doesn't grab you.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Then you're not playing D&D.
There are a ton of games out there that offer what you want.
"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
If it was going to be cut down to just fighter/rogue/caster, then subclasses would need to do an insane amount more than they do now.
So surprised warlord is this unpopular. We have barely any martials as it is, and people are complaining non stop about how skewed towards casters the game is generally.
We have barbarians, fighters, monks and rogues, and a bunch of half-casters (which are all half-martials too). I wouldn’t call that “barely”.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm currently homebrewing the class system enitrely so that classes become more separated from the subclasses (which would provide additional flavour to characters). I like this idea because it means that you can more easily build a variety of character types without feeling that to be super-brawny you have to take levels in the barbarian class.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I dint see the need for half caster as you can just take some levels in caster and some on other classes to fill that role, say battlemaster11/wizard something 9 in the current system :)
I think that removing the existing subclasses would take away from the flavour of the game, myself. Keep the classes and subclasses but make them mix and match.
Chilling kinda vibe.
How a half caster works is completely different to how a multiclassed half martial half caster works.
If you just take some levels in caster you end up as half a caster one turn and half a martial the next. A paladin isn't just a bad fighter who stops to heal people sometimes. Multiclassing into a caster gets you nothing which lets you blend magic and combat together like a paladin or ranger can.
The Paladin and Ranger classes both possess some spells that fit their concepts and cannot be found on any other spell list. Although I still don't like paladins, they do have a purpose.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Not under the current system. But under that system it would have to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Trouble is then the full casters can access all the half caster martial spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike.
Unless the act of multiclassing is what opens those spells up in that system. So a divine subclass caster couldn't access a radiant smite spell, and a pure fighter couldn't. But a mix of the two can access it.
I still think that the classes are there for a reason. There's a huge difference between a cleric and a wizard, but they would both be classed as "spellcasters" and this is an issue for me.
Chilling kinda vibe.
You presume those spells would exist in that new system. They don’t have to. They didn’t exist in the older editions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They are currently both classified as “spellcasters.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But not as a "Caster" as in the suggested class for all spellcasters.
Chilling kinda vibe.