The simplest version of classes possible

[Specter]

DISCLAIMER: This is not an intended fix.

As an exercise, if you could take the base 4 classes of D&D (Thief, Magic User, Fighter and Cleric) and make them branch out to encompass all the classes we see today in D&D, how would you do it using 5e mechanics?

Here's what I thought about the Fighter:

FIGHTER
Base fighter features, along with subclass features at 3, 7, 10, 15 and 18
Barbarian: Rage - Reckless Attack - Totem Feature - Relentless Rage - Frenzy (more attacks once by long rest)
Paladin: Lay on Hands - Divine Smite (X times by short rest, not tied to spells) - Aura of Protection - Aura of Courage - Aura expansion
Champion: Combat Superiority - Know Your Enemy - Improved Critical - Survivor - Superior Critical

The ones that seem a challenge are Bards and Monks; not sure where they would fall.
What do you think?

[zeek0]

Sure, it's possible. Mechanically sound. But... why?

[NecroDancer]

For fun.

That being said I think the open hand monk would be a fighter (shadow monk would be a thief subclass) subclass and the bard would be a mage subclass (because of full spellcasting).

[Millstone85]

I understand why the fighter, mage and thief are regarded as base classes in a game that is built around swords, spells and skills.

But I am not sure what defines the cleric. Is it the healing magic? The gishiness?

[Naanomi]

Cleric was defined, traditionally, by durability (without the melee damage potential of a fighting man, but the same armor and close to the same hit die); and support-oriented magic. The distinction from magic user was more stark when the 'glass' part of 'glass cannon' was more pronounced

[DanyBallon]

The ones that seem a challenge are Bards and Monks; not sure where they would fall.

I'd say Bard would fall under rogue as it is a skill monkey on top of which magic was added. And Monk would be a dextrous warrior.



I understand why the fighter, mage and thief are regarded as base classes in a game that is built around swords, spells and skills.

But I am not sure what defines the cleric. Is it the healing magic? The gishiness?

D&D traditionnaly divised magic between arcane and divine, the former being more, but not exclusively, focused on offensive magic, while divine magic is more often about buffing/healing and control. As the game evolved through editions the already blurred line between divine and arcane magic is now almost gone.

I'd say that we could set a arbitrary distinction based on fluff, as arcane covers anything that deals with research, lore, eldritch power and innate magic, while divine will be magic about faith, nature, gods and the like.

[Millstone85]

Alright then, healing/buffing magic and enough durability to not have to cast most of it on yourself.

I would still regard the cleric as an odd duck among the base classes.

[Tanarii]

You've already covered Tank-y classes, but I'll note Paladins are Fighters with Cleric Spells & special abilities. You can't dump the Cleric spells, they are integral IMO.

Artillery Classes:
Warlock & Sorcerer are easy to do they're just Wizard subclasses that remove the spellbook feature and replace it with other stuff. Warlocks get nerfed pretty hard though ... ignore short-rest regen, turn invocations into ribbons, tone down Eldritch Blast.

Buff / Debuff classes:
Druids you should remove the Cleric Nature domain and replace it with 'Druid' domain. Or just keep calling it 'Nature' but change up all the things it does.
Bards would be Multiclass Fighter/Rogue/Druid-sub-class. Or a Cleric sub-class with special musical abilities, Rogue-y abilities (skills & expertise), and access to Druid spells + Arcane Illusion & Enchantment.

Skirmishers:
Rangers are a Rogue sub-class that gets bonus weapons, armor, hit points, Favored Enemy, Weapon abilities, Ambush abilities, and eventually Druid spells. (They used to be a Fighter sub-class but changed in 3.5e. Revert them if you're feeling old-timey.)
Monks have always been special. They don't fall under another class. Or you can just call them a Rogue sub-type with special unarmed, mobility, and defense abilities.

[DanyBallon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the traditionnal role were as follow:

Warrior
Fighter: the base fighting man, can fill the role of soldier, gladiator, archer, etc. --> good at fighting but not much else
Paladin: The knight in shiny armor bless by the gods --> good tank with healing
Ranger: The wilderness warrior --> more skillful than fighter and paladin, have a few utility spells
Monk: the dextrous warrior

Cleric
Priest: base divine warrior --> good survability, healing, and buff
Druid: nature divine spellcaster

Rogue
Thief: the cunning thief, treasure hunter, pickpocket --> focus on skill, and stealth, with 3.0 more combat oriented system, became a skirmisher
Bard: Jack of all trade, more skillful than a fighter and a better fighter than a thief with a splash of magic on top --> in 5e the Arcane Trickster fills pretty much that role, through edition the Bard move toward a better spellcaster focusing on charm and illusion.

Magic User
Wizard: fragile creatures that can change the outcome of a combat with a single spell --> through edition changes they became more and more durable in order to prevent the too many death, and their magic has been adjusted to prevent the 5 min day.
Sorcerer: innate spellcaster, good blaster
Warlock: ... (I'm not familiar enough with the warlock to see it's exact role)


I could see the barbarian being a fighter with a "raging fighting style". Same goes for the Battle Master, the EK is a Fighter/Magic User, Champion is the base fighter. Warlock and sorcerer being variation of the wizard. Cleric and druid can be roll up in the same base class with the later having a nature focus. Assassin and thief are aspect of the rogue, and AT filling the role of the traditionnal bard. Leaving me with 5e Bard which I really don't know where to fit...

[Specter]

I guess the Warlock would be the 'at-will' mage, having better cantrips and invocations.

[DanyBallon]

I guess the Warlock would be the 'at-will' mage, having better cantrips and invocations.

But isn't that covered with the new cantrips in 5e? And as far as spell goes, isn't this description steping on the sorcerer's toes?

[Tanarii]

I guess the Warlock would be the 'at-will' mage, having better cantrips and invocations.
Sorcerers are the at-will cantrip mage. Edit: Especially Dragon Sorcerers. But I do mean at-will elemental combat cantrip mage. Warlocks are really good at at-will long-range 'untyped magical' damage (force is effectively untyped in 5e). So I do see your point.

edit2 (to avoid double-posting):

Monk: the dextrous warriorHistorically Monks were billed as Cleric/Thief hybrid with the Cleric combat capabilities being replaced with unarmed offense/defense, and spells replaced with special abilities. Of course, effectively that meant 'Cleric' as far as saving throws and attack table went, nothing else.

In fact, it's important to remember that's what a sub-class originally meant. Which attack table and saving throw table you used. Pretty much everything else could vary by specific class. And in 5e there are no attack tables, and saving throws are class specific. So there's not a huge point is making the other classes sub-classes.


Bard: Jack of all trade, more skillful than a fighter and a better fighter than a thief with a splash of magic on top --> in 5e the Arcane Trickster fills pretty much that role, through edition the Bard move toward a better spellcaster focusing on charm and illusion.They were quite literally a dual-class Fighter/Thief/Bard, and got Druid spells (only) when they started leveling as a Bard. The charm/illusion thing crept in later, although they had a charm-like special class features in the original

[DanyBallon]

Sorcerers are the at-will cantrip mage. Edit: Especially Dragon Sorcerers. But I do mean at-will elemental combat cantrip mage. Warlocks are really good at at-will long-range 'untyped magical' damage (force is effectively untyped in 5e). So I do see your point.

edit2 (to avoid double-posting):
Historically Monks were billed as Cleric/Thief hybrid with the Cleric combat capabilities being replaced with unarmed offense/defense, and spells replaced with special abilities. Of course, effectively that meant 'Cleric' as far as saving throws and attack table went, nothing else.

In fact, it's important to remember that's what a sub-class originally meant. Which attack table and saving throw table you used. Pretty much everything else could vary by specific class. And in 5e there are no attack tables, and saving throws are class specific. So there's not a huge point is making the other classes sub-classes.

Ok, I was maybe a bit too far in my thinking as if we were to roll back the different 5e classes in 4 base classes I would allow the sorcerer subclass to be the only ones able to modify the type of damage they do beacause innate spellcasting ability :smallbiggrin:

[Millstone85]

So, when I think of base classes, I think of most other classes as combos.

Something like:
Bard ≈ Cleric / Fighter / Mage / Thief
Monk ≈ Cleric / Thief
Paladin ≈ Cleric / Fighter
Ranger ≈ Fighter / Thief, maybe Cleric (Druid) too
SorcLock ≈ Mage / Thief

And that's why it doesn't feel so easy to turn them into subclasses.
For example, why would a paladin always be a fighter who was granted holy powers, and never a cleric who went through martial training?


They were quite literally a dual-class Fighter/Thief/Bard, and got Druid spells (only) when they started leveling as a Bard.Is that what they called a "prestige class"?

I wonder if it would be possible for classes to share a subclass. Like, you need X levels of cleric OR fighter to become a paladin.

[DanyBallon]

So, when I think of base classes, I think of most other classes as combos.

Something like:
Bard ≈ Cleric / Fighter / Mage / Thief
Monk ≈ Cleric / Thief
Paladin ≈ Cleric / Fighter
Ranger ≈ Fighter / Thief, maybe Cleric (Druid) too
SorcLock ≈ Mage / Thief

And that's why it doesn't feel so easy to turn them into subclasses.
For example, why would a paladin always be a fighter who was granted holy powers, and never a cleric who went through martial training?

I agree with you, it's far from easy to roll back the current classes in the more "generic" classes they were at the beginning of D&D.

As for cleric, I've always considered them as the armed branch of a faith. Paladins are more the epitome of justice and bravery (at least until they removed the LG requirement :smallbiggrin:)



Is that what they called a "prestige class"?

It was far before prestige classes even exist. Also, back then, Dual-classing was the only way for humans to multi-class, and was kind of harsh as when you changed to a new class, you had to forgo using features of your previous class until your new class was at least one level higher than the previous one.


I wonder if it would be possible for classes to share a subclass. Like, you need X levels of cleric OR fighter to become a paladin.

It could be possible, but we would need to rework all the base class as to get subclass features at the same level, or at the very least, have the same amount ouf class feature, so that you don't end up with a dead level, or missing a high level subclass feature.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think you have to break it down like this otherwise you're not doing another class justice. I'm kind of basing this off the idea that D&D came about as another type of war board game, where instead of different troop types you have different classes, add in magic and flavor and there you go.

Warrior: Fighter, barbarian, paladin

Scout: Ranger, rogue, Monk, Warlock

Support: bard, cleric, druid

Magical Combatant: Sorcerer, Wizard,

Sorcerer and warlocks need to be differentiated more than the are currently. Warlocks could be a better magical scout, using invocations and defending themselves with basic cantrips or blowing spells for powerful but limited abilities. Sorcerers would be a focused artillery magic user, with more versatility when i comes to how to blow something up, but outside of that they wouldn't have the skill potential or out of combat specialties like a warlock could have. Wizard is the guy who prepares in advance exactly what he needs.


Monks are weird and don't generally fall in any one category, but you could argue they are in line with the other skirmishers and specialized like them as well. They also could move the fastest making good runners, and they need very little for offense and defense.

I think everything else sort of falls in its place. Druid wild shaping might seam weird as support role but imagine it as a siege weapon.

[Pichu]

Warrior: Fighter, barbarian, paladin

Scout: Ranger, rogue, Monk, Warlock

Support: bard, cleric, druid

Magical Combatant: Sorcerer, Wizard,

Personally, I would switch 'Scout' to 'Skirmisher' and move Warlock to the 'Magicks' category. But that's just my opinion :smallbiggrin:

[Mortis_Elrod]

Personally, I would switch 'Scout' to 'Skirmisher' and move Warlock to the 'Magicks' category. But that's just my opinion :smallbiggrin:

I just feel like warlocks lose too much when they are in that same category as the sorcerer, where as they shine as a unique magic scout.

[Naanomi]

I would like to see Warlocks spun into the Cleric family tree somehow... Arcane magic is from yourself (study, blood); and divine magic is from an outside source (Gods, nature, Patrons); maybe with a debuffing feel to fill the same 'combat support' role from a different angle

[Hrugner]

I'd probably break it down like this
Fighter: Paladin, Cleric, Barbarian, Fighter
Mage: Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard
Thief: Ranger, Monk, Rogue, Bard

Too many of the classes have expanded out of their niche I think. Cleric and paladin both fought on the front lines and used melee weapons, but had magic to support that ability, so they end up in the fighter category. Druid was sort of a hodge podge of things, and a class for super advanced characters, it probably shouldn't go anywhere. Ranger and monk have the sorts of environmental support that a rogue would provide, but not for a purely dungeon setting.

[Millstone85]

I would like to see Warlocks spun into the Cleric family tree somehow... Arcane magic is from yourself (study, blood); and divine magic is from an outside source (Gods, nature, Patrons); maybe with a debuffing feel to fill the same 'combat support' role from a different angleThe way I understand it, while a warlock bargained for magical talent, their access to the Weave isn't currently mediated by anyone else. They are essentially artificial sorcerers, with an alien, fey or fiendish taint in their blood, mind or soul.

But I agree that might go a bit too far into magobabble.

Really, there are two big ways to fluff the warlock:
* A cleric of something that is not a god, or is a weird one.
* A cleric without the devotion, but a cold contract instead.

[Kane0]

The Rule of Threes!
Essentially make three core classes, each of which branches out into three subclasses (say at level 3) then again into three specialties (perhaps at level 5). That leaves you with 27 distinct varieties of adventurer out of 3 core ability sets, and no double ups on saving throw proficiencies. Bonus points for Rock/Paper/Scissors balancing and linking them back to the three pillars.

For example:
Warrior (Combat primary, exploration secondary, beats expert): Attacky, Defendy, Leadery
Spellcaster (Exploration Primary, interaction secondary, beats warrior): Granted, Innate, Studied
Expert (Interaction Primary, combat secondary, beats spellcaster): Scout, Skirmisher, Gish

[Cespenar]

Next level: Roll rogue into warrior as well. You just have the Physical class and the Magical class. Pick high dex if you wanna play a rogue.

Simplest, though? Remove classes altogether. You have stats, skills, and proficiencies. If you wanna do magic, have Arcana proficiency, find the spell somewhere in the game, craft it into a scroll, and make the Arcana check to successfully cast it.

Also remove hit points. Hits are enemy Str or Dex checks vs. your Con checks. Failure gives you 1 Exhaustion.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I would switch 'Scout' to 'Skirmisher' and move Warlock to the 'Magicks' category. But that's just my opinion :smallbiggrin:

That's how I categorize D&D 5e classes. Warrior/Tank Scout/Skirmisher, Buff/Debuff/Support, and Squishy Magical Artillery. And warlock is clearly the last. :smallbiggrin:

[cZak]

Simplest would be Caster & non-Caster.

All characters would be assigned a base pool to build.
Costs assigned to proficiency; skills, weapons, saves, etc...
Maybe even stats, hit die type, racial abilities (darkvision, resistance to damage, etc...)
More point costs to cast spells.

Character advancement would gain additional points to be spent on same basis to improve, maybe even pick up new abilities

Kind of reminds me of oWoD or maybe the video game Dungeon Seige(?)

[Ruslan]

Here's my not-entirely-serious attempt at the Fighting Man

Hit die: d10
Weapons: all simple and martial
Armor & Shield: all
Saves: STR, CON
Skills: Choose three among Athletics, Acrobatics, Perception, Intimidation, Survival, Animal Handling

Level 1: Weapon Focus. Choose a weapon. You get +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon.
Level 2: Weapon Focus (2). Choose another weapon to benefit from Weapon Focus
Level 3: Weapon Focus (3). Choose another weapon to benefit from Weapon Focus
Level 4: Feat or ASI
Level 5: Multiattack
Level 6: Feat or ASI
Level 7: Weapon Specialization. Choose a weapon you have Weapon Focus with. Gain additional +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon
Level 8: Feat or ASI
Level 9: Weapon Focus (4). Choose another weapon to benefit from Weapon Focus
Level 10: Weapon Specialization (2). Choose a weapon you have Weapon Focus with. Gain additional +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon
Level 11: Multiattack (2)
Level 12: Feat or ASI
Level 13: Greater Weapon Specialization. Choose a weapon you have Weapon Specialization with. Gain additional +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon
Level 14: Feat or ASI
Level 15: Weapon Specialization (3). Choose a weapon you have Weapon Focus with. Gain additional +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon
Level 16: Feat or ASI
Level 17: Greater Weapon Specialization (2). Choose a weapon you have Weapon Specialization with. Gain additional +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon
Level 18: Weapon Mastery. Choose a weapon you have Greater Weapon Specialization with. Gain additional +1 to attack and damage rolls with that weapon
Level 19: Feat or ASI
Level 20: Multiattack (3)