So say DnD 6e comes out tomorrow: What classes do you want to see make it into the player handbook?
Over the editions it's usually been pretty steady, with the odd one or two switching around. I actually think that 12 is too many for the core player handbook, and in 5e it has shown, with ranger and sorcerer being rushed to get them in (both seeing barely any playtesting and both being the most complained about classes). As an ideal I'd probably pick Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard.
3e had 11 classes in the PHB, which were; Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard.
4e had only 8 classes, adding the warlock and warlord compared to 3e, while stripping out barbarian, bard, druid, monk, and sorcerer.
5e went back up to 12, adding back those classes which the 4e PHB did not contain, while removing the warlord.
If they could be well designed, balanced, and mechanically unique? All of them.
I mean technically that would be my answer too, but I don't believe all of them can be playtested at the same time in a timely and satisfying manner.
5e already had issues with ranger and sorcerer in playtest, and it's gotten us 6 years of complaints. I think that starting with a slightly lower number allows each one to be focused on individually in a more satisfying manner.
Expert, warrior and spellcaster would be my choices, if we need classes at all. I feel like a totally feat-style based progression is a more modern solution.
Expert, warrior and spellcaster would be my choices, if we need classes at all. I feel like a totally feat-style based progression is a more modern solution.
Expert, warrior and spellcaster would be my choices, if we need classes at all. I feel like a totally feat-style based progression is a more modern solution.
I mean I don't agree, but that's the type of controversial answer which I love seeing!
If they could be well designed, balanced, and mechanically unique? All of them.
I mean technically that would be my answer too, but I don't believe all of them can be playtested at the same time in a timely and satisfying manner.
5e already had issues with ranger and sorcerer in playtest, and it's gotten us 6 years of complaints. I think that starting with a slightly lower number allows each one to be focused on individually in a more satisfying manner.
Yeah, I don't think that all of them would be reasonable. A more realistic answer would be drop sorcerer and replace it with Psion or artificer, and replace ranger with Warlord. That ends up with the same number of classes, but they will likely be more different mechanically.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I'm surprised warlord is getting so few people wanting it. We have so many casters and so few pure martials. It's very different to the other martials too. Imo it's a much better pick than sorcerer or ranger.
I'm surprised warlord is getting so few people wanting it. We have so many casters and so few pure martials. It's very different to the other martials too. Imo it's a much better pick than sorcerer or ranger.
Probably because people don't recognize it, and don't like change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
So say DnD 6e comes out tomorrow: What classes do you want to see make it into the player handbook?
Over the editions it's usually been pretty steady, with the odd one or two switching around. I actually think that 12 is too many for the core player handbook, and in 5e it has shown, with ranger and sorcerer being rushed to get them in (both seeing barely any playtesting and both being the most complained about classes). As an ideal I'd probably pick Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, and Wizard.
3e had 11 classes in the PHB, which were; Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard.
4e had only 8 classes, adding the warlock and warlord compared to 3e, while stripping out barbarian, bard, druid, monk, and sorcerer.
5e went back up to 12, adding back those classes which the 4e PHB did not contain, while removing the warlord.
Also, the Psionicist.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I forgot to put an 'other' option on the poll.
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.
And it would guarantee they exist next edition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It definitely deserves a spot far more than sorcerer imo. 'Bad wizard with the metamagic feat glued on' isn't what I'd pick as a core class.
They stole both “Metamagic” and “Sorcery Points” from the Psionicist in the first place. They used to be Metapsionics and Psi Points.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If they could be well designed, balanced, and mechanically unique? All of them.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I mean technically that would be my answer too, but I don't believe all of them can be playtested at the same time in a timely and satisfying manner.
5e already had issues with ranger and sorcerer in playtest, and it's gotten us 6 years of complaints. I think that starting with a slightly lower number allows each one to be focused on individually in a more satisfying manner.
Expert, warrior and spellcaster would be my choices, if we need classes at all. I feel like a totally feat-style based progression is a more modern solution.
But it wouldn’t be D&D anymore.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I mean I don't agree, but that's the type of controversial answer which I love seeing!
Yeah, I don't think that all of them would be reasonable. A more realistic answer would be drop sorcerer and replace it with Psion or artificer, and replace ranger with Warlord. That ends up with the same number of classes, but they will likely be more different mechanically.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I'm surprised warlord is getting so few people wanting it. We have so many casters and so few pure martials. It's very different to the other martials too. Imo it's a much better pick than sorcerer or ranger.
Probably because people don't recognize it, and don't like change.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
HAHAHHA! I knew you would say that!
Just like Yurei1453 will say Arcane Fighty Folk.
Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Rogue. Everything else would just be a subclass.
Everybody can get psionics.
"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 think if you're going to complete barebones like that, there still needs to be a basic 'half caster' as well.
I presume in that type of system, a half caster would be a subclass.
I would only enjoy that type of system if the subclass provided massive changes to the main class. If it didn't it would be too boring for me.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The only ones you really CAN’T get rid of are Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric: the classics. The rest are give or take.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I'd rename Fighter to Warrior. It probably will never happen due to nostalgia, but warrior just makes much more sense.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
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
mutantspsychics." 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.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.