Core classes and races to feel like D&D

[Tanarii]

With the D&Done announcement and reading through the discussions, one thing jumps out at me

What would you consider the race and class list that a core PHB needs to include to feel like D&D? Like, it can have more, but if it was missing those it wouldn't feel like a fully fleshed out core PHB?

Don't feel the need to restrict yourself to current races or classes (or their names), but keep in mind if you wander too far afield others will probably raise an eyebrow :smallconfused::smallwink:

------------

As someone that started in BECMI/AD&D and has played every edition and every revision (UA, PO, .5, Essentials) since, my list is probably very close to the greatest hits:

Core races:
Human
Dwarf
Elf
Half-Elf
Half-Orc

Core Classes:
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard/Sorcerer*


Opinions and explanations :smallamused:
- Sorcerers would retain the feeling of Magic-users/wizards, but I feel it's been time for Spellbooks to go since maybe 2e. The name doesn't have to be Sorcerer, it could possibly even be Wizard as long as it doesn't use a spellbook. It probably should, but doesn't absolutely have to, have spell slots that come back daily.
- Warlock is the best designed 5e class but I don't need it to feel like Core is complete. A well designed one is always welcome, or it could just be rolled in together as a flavor of the non-spellbook arcane nuke class (Sorcerer or whatever it's called).
- I could possibly accept a single "Priest" class as a Cleric/Druid substitute. But it might need a different name.
- Bards and Halflings are conspicuously absent. Dragonlance, Dark Sun & 3e tried to fix Halflings and 5e re-ruined halflings and tried to fix Bards, but all too little too late. So I don't need them to feel like Core is complete.
- I'd love to see things like Form-shifting Wardens, Teleporting Swordmages, Primal Rage-form Barbarians, and martial healing Warlords as additional classes in the PHB.

[tiornys]

Human, Elf, Dwarf

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard

Everything else is spice

[x3n0n]

Human, Elf, Dwarf

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard

Everything else is spice

WotC presumably agrees, since your set plus Halfling is the 5e Basic Rules.

My race list is probably the same as Tanarii's, and my class list is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and "arcane caster".

I agree that Wizard "feels like" the "most D&D" arcane caster, but I could easily be convinced that Sorcerer (i.e. "known-spells arcanist") would be the better one for the game.

[diplomancer]

WotC presumably agrees, since your set plus Halfling is the 5e Basic Rules.

My race list is probably the same as Tanarii's, and my class list is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and "arcane caster".

I agree that Wizard "feels like" the "most D&D" arcane caster, but I could easily be convinced that Sorcerer (i.e. "known-spells arcanist") would be the better one for the game.

And I agree with WotC; halflings will always be core to D&D.

Druids are dispensable as a Core class. Wizards could be replaced by Sorcerers, and it would probably be for the best (though maybe still Int-based: "brainy magic guy" is very much a core archetype).

[jas61292]

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard/Sorcerer

That's it.

Don't care whether its Wizard or Sorcerer, just need an arcane caster. And while I would like some Orc representation, I don't think Orc is needed, (and I have grown to despise half races), so I am totally fine without one.

[Tanarii]

Wizards could be replaced by Sorcerers, and it would probably be for the best (though maybe still Int-based: "brainy magic guy" is very much a core archetype).
That is a very good point. The primary distinguishers between Wizards and Sorcerers are:
- spontaneous casting (eliminated in 5e)
- spellbook vs known
- Int vs Cha

And probably in most 5e players minds, Int vs Cha is the biggest deal, not spellbook vs known.
My list would probably be best updated to "spellbook-less arcane caster" at this point :smallamused:
(Edit: changed it to Wizard/Sorcerer)


And while I would like some Orc representation, I don't think Orc is needed, (and I have grown to despise half races), so I am totally fine without one.Orcs shouldn't be in a PHB. Maybe in a Team Evil splatbook, along with Hobgoblins, Goblins, Kobolds, Gnolls, Bugbears, Drow, etc.

[Pex]

Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Gnome

Fighter, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue

[jas61292]

Orcs shouldn't be in a PHB. Maybe in a Team Evil splatbook, along with Hobgoblins, Goblins, Kobolds, Gnolls, Bugbears, Drow, etc.

I can totally agree with that. I like Orcs as a race, and I don't think they need to be universally evil, but I do think that they are a traditional villain race, and don't need to be a core option for players. I wouldn't complain if they were, but they certainly don't need to be. Honestly the only reason I would even consider it is because, as I said in the last post, I do not like half races, and so if they want Orc representation, I'd rather them include Orc than Half-Orc. But I don't really feel you need either in a core player book.

[Kane0]

Two big races, two medium ones and two small ones

Warrior, expert, mage and three half-blends between them.

[tiornys]

WotC presumably agrees, since your set plus Halfling is the 5e Basic Rules.
Huh, interesting and good to know.


And I agree with WotC; halflings will always be core to D&D.
I debated including halflings, and was trying to remember if they'd been part of BECMI or if they came in on a later edition. I thought about looking it up, but then realized that if that was my deciding factor and I couldn't remember them being there, they weren't that important to me personally. I certainly have no objection to them being included.

[Tanarii]

I can totally agree with that. I like Orcs as a race, and I don't think they need to be universally evil, but I do think that they are a traditional villain race, and don't need to be a core option for players. I wouldn't complain if they were, but they certainly don't need to be. Honestly the only reason I would even consider it is because, as I said in the last post, I do not like half races, and so if they want Orc representation, I'd rather them include Orc than Half-Orc. But I don't really feel you need either in a core player book.
That makes sense. If you don't like half races, or possibly feel that they could be represented in the D&Done manner of just taking the base race features, including Orcs instead of Half-orcs checks out. But IMO at that point you might as well continue and include Hobgoblins, Goblins, and Kobolds too. For completeness if nothing else.



I debated including halflings, and was trying to remember if they'd been part of BECMI or if they came in on a later edition. I thought about looking it up, but then realized that if that was my deciding factor and I couldn't remember them being there, they weren't that important to me personally. I certainly have no objection to them being included.Definitely yes on BECMI. IIRC B/X, B, and at some point in OD&D. Although the last may have been in one of the expansions?

-------

Circling back:

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard


Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard/Sorcerer

How would you feel about 2e style over-categories? Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Mage.
Or do the names Fighter and Cleric come with important connotations regarding the kind of features they'd get?

[False God]

Hmmm, well, a lot of things "feel like D&D" to me, but if I had to pin it down...

Humans
Dwarves
Elves
Orcs
*Half-breeds of whatever sort, including planetouched, feel more like replaying other specific generic fantasy, ie: you're specifically trying to play Aragorn or Tanis, than your own D&D game.
**"Shortlings", Kender, Halflings, Gnomes are all either not unique enough on their own, or have been defined better in other more specific D&D-styled games or stories. I also just generally don't like short-folk races. My experience with people who play them has been rather poor, as almost all of them have been table-trolls.

Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Barbarian
I don't include Rogue or Fighter here because there's nothing about them in their game design that that feels unique or defining to D&D. Sorcerer's are just wizards who cast different, and frankly, that's all "Sorcerer" should be: a variant casting form.

I'm tempted to include Psion here because I can't really think of any other game that actually does psi-like powers, but by the same token, they're basically mental wizards as many of their spells are duplicates or mild variants of wizard spells, and if they're just a variant wizard then they just get tossed in under Wizard.

Paladin doesn't make the cut because while I do feel D&D is very defining in the implementation of the Paladin across numerous other games and media, more often than not the "Holy Warrior" can be covered by the Cleric.

The Barbarian is one of the few classes that stands out uniquely (IMO) in D&D mostly with it's Rage mechanic. It's not something the caster classes emulate well, and it's not something that the other less-well-defined martial classes can emulate or get access to.

Ranger doesn't make the cut for the same reason as Paladin: Druid does it better. It's more D&D's attempt to simulate other fantasy works, rather than define something for itself.

TLDR If I were to get right down to it, I'd probably eliminate all non-caster classes from D&D. You'd build everything from Fighter to Rogue to Eldrich Knight by making one of the three main casters less primary-caster via various subclasses and level-up choices.
IE: a "Fighter" would be a Wizard who instead of a spellbook, enchants their armor to provide various long-term effects. A Paladin would be cleric-based, a Ranger would be Druid-based with the most non-magical Druid-based "class" being the Barbarian.

[animorte]

Nobody has said Monks. They are the most balanced class, along with Warlock. But of course, when one thinks of D&D, balance is notorious for its absence.

I’d have to agree with the standard 4 races, 4 classes already mostly agreed upon by everyone.

[x3n0n]

How would you feel about 2e style over-categories? Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Mage.

Yeah.

In order of importance for me to recognize it as a D&D world:

Person who fights
Person who casts arcane spells
Person who channels divine/natural healing power
Person who does tricky/skillful non-magical stuff


Re: Monk, I love them, but they are not necessary for me to recognize a game system as D&D.

[Kane0]

With that movie coming along, might be a good example of what the 'industry' thinks is the most boilerplate D&D

[False God]

With that movie coming along, might be a good example of what the 'industry' thinks is the most boilerplate D&D

Rogue, Bard, Wizard, Cleric, Halfling.

[Tanarii]

With that movie coming along, might be a good example of what the 'industry' thinks is the most boilerplate D&D
What was it again? Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Druid (Tiefling) and Sorcerer?

On looking at that list a second time, seems more to me like they were avoiding the iconic four intentionally. That'd certainly be another way to think about "definitely D&D".

[Schwann145]

It's "iconic D&D" if it looks like it was blatantly stolen from Tolkien.
Because, basically, it all was back in the day.

So Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits Halflings.

As for classes, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and some flavor of primary Arcane Caster (wizard, sorcerer, warlock, whatever).
Everything else is just a specific flavor of the above. Barbarian is just spicy Fighter. Paladin is just holy Fighter. Druid is just nature Cleric, etc.

[HidesHisEyes]

My instinctive answer is:
- Human, elf, dwarf, halfling, gnome, half elf, half orc
- Fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, bard, monk, barbarian, sorcerer

Purely because that’s what you had in Neverwinter Nights, which was the game that made me want to play D&D and will always be the version that feels like the real thing, to me.

But my considered answer is that I agree with those saying a more stripped down list:
- Human, elf, dwarf, halfling
- Fighter, rogue, priest, mage

I think I would actually prefer a version like this, with other classes being subclasses of these ones. I’d also prefer 10 levels and generally less powerful PCs. I can dream.

[animorte]

But my considered answer is that I agree with those saying a more stripped down list:
- Human, elf, dwarf, halfling
- Fighter, rogue, priest, mage

I think I would actually prefer a version like this, with other classes being subclasses of these ones. I’d also prefer 10 levels and generally less powerful PCs. I can dream.

My dreams are similar. I think we would have a much greater balance with fewer base classes, ultimately branching out into more of the concepts we have currently.

[t209]

Nobody has said Monks. They are the most balanced class, along with Warlock. But of course, when one thinks of D&D, balance is notorious for its absence.

I’d have to agree with the standard 4 races, 4 classes already mostly agreed upon by everyone.

Maybe if they already had unarmed brawling already included in base game and maybe some sort of feature (mostly rogue, or at least “speedster” type) to utilize it to full potential.

[elyktsorb]

Races

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling


Classes

Wizard
Fighter or Barbarian
Cleric
Druid
Rogue
Bard

Bards have become so synonymous with DnD over the years that it's hard to exclude them in my opinion.

Otherwise I don't think it needs to be a long list to fit the core of dnd both race and class wise.

Wizard is your magic class, anyone saying Sorcerer over Wizard probably likes Sorcerer quite a bit, because I don't think many people with even a slight knowledge of DnD would think of Sorcerer, they'd think Wizard.

I'm thinking of Bard, less as a spell caster, and more of a jack of all stuff class.

Druid has always managed to differentiate from Cleric, and literally just because nature and animals.

Cleric is your classic healy person.

Fighter is the fighty one, and is honestly interchangeable with Barbarian tbh.

And Rogue is traps and stuff.


I love Monk as a concept, but when I think of DND I think of medieval fantasy, which Monk's don't really fit in at all.

Warlock is conceptually just a Cleric. Yeah that's it, Warlock is literally just Cleric in terms of flavor or mechanics. It's odd, because, Cleric and Druid are also functionally quite similar, both pulling power from a source greater than they are. But the flavoring of druid's with nature, animals, and transformation into animals really sets it apart. A warlock is literally the same as a cleric. They both pull powers from specific higher powers. They made the Warlock in this edition mechanically different sure, but it still doesn't feel like it's own thing, at least not in the way Druid feels like it's own thing.

Sorcerer isn't something I think I've ever cared about? Like, the idea of the Sorcerer needs work to me. Like, there needs to be more emphasis on their magical abilities coming from monsters or whatever, anything to make it so that they don't just feel like they got there by doing nothing.

Paladin to me is just a Cleric with Fighter levels.

I think Artificer is neat, but I think it needs to be spun in more of the 'alchemist' sense instead of the 'I make wondrous machines that kind of defy all the expectations of reality around me' I think it needs to be more ramshackle. Otherwise I'm supposed to believe that literally anyone can just make functional power armor, and machine dogs with some learning when most people are just like peasants?

Ranger to me is a Fighter with Druid levels, and the way they represent Ranger in 5e does not make me eager for any new Ranger.

I'll touch on Barbarian here since Fighter needs no explanation really. Since I think a Fighter could be a Barbarian. I don't know if I entirely think a Barbarian would exactly fit the Fighter role, but it's very close. There is a definite type of 'unhinged berserker' that I don't think Fighter really fits. To me Fighter is a disciplined Warrior, skilled at combat in many ways. Where a Barbarian is a hulking Warrior, who isn't particularly skilled, but they are tough and unwilling to die. They don't fight fancy, they fight dirty. They fight with a reckless abandon. To me there are definitely spots fighter and barbarian overlap, but I think they can feel very different.

Thank you for coming to my post.

[Lord Raziere]

Warlock is conceptually just a Cleric. Yeah that's it, Warlock is literally just Cleric in terms of flavor or mechanics. It's odd, because, Cleric and Druid are also functionally quite similar, both pulling power from a source greater than they are. But the flavoring of druid's with nature, animals, and transformation into animals really sets it apart. A warlock is literally the same as a cleric. They both pull powers from specific higher powers. They made the Warlock in this edition mechanically different sure, but it still doesn't feel like it's own thing, at least not in the way Druid feels like it's own thing.


In an abstract simplified sense maybe.

they're different archetypes however: the cleric is someone who prays to a god as a servant of their will, believing in a higher cause and principles- in all likelihood the cleric never expected to actually be GRANTED such power, they just believe in the cause so much that they were found worthy of it. its a reward for their dedication that only happens because they had faith in that power so much that it was given to them. the cleric buys in to the deity or cause long before the deity places such power in them.

the warlock on the other hand, needs to have no such dedication. the relationship is explicitly a pact they make for the power, not some cause or ideal. its why a celestial warlock is different from a cleric of a good god, or an infernal warlock is different from a cleric of an evil one. this contractual deal is more of an exchange of goods and services, not the greater being selling a cause, and once the whatever deal is concluded, the warlock's powers stay with them. its explicitly drawing upon a "deal with the devil" archetype which is different from believing in that beings cause. an infernal warlock can rebel against the devil they made a deal with or fulfill only the letter of the deal, a cleric on the other hand needs to hope that another god will take notice to grant them the powers they have if they turn against their deity or their values, because their powers are all about fulfilling the spirit of the relationship.

[Dork_Forge]

Started with 5E in 2015, my answer is exactly as the PHB is now, but if looking to 2024 it should just include Artificer from the go.

[Waazraath]

As for races: human, elf, half-elf, dwarf would be enough for me.

Classes I think is harder to answer - for instance, I think the concepts of both cleric and druid have a place (though not neccesarily under those names), but could live with both these as seperate classes, but as well with a 'priest' that offers both as a specialization or subclass. I think you need the archetypes of priests, mages, fighters and scoundrels for the feel of D&D, and wouldn't like to play a game without paladins or warlocks (though the latter are a relative new addition).

[noob]

Only one class is needed to feel like dnd: magic user, all the other classes are similar to things in other rpgs while magic users that gets absurd world breaking spells usually seen only on bad evil guys as playable characters is something rarely seen outside of dnd.
Then the rest is just about looking sufficiently like a tolkien ripoff and having lots of silly monsters like mind flayers, beholders, trunks with glue covered false rabbits and so on.

[Martin Greywolf]

I'd definitely add Paladin to the class list - it's not vitally important for the game to function, but it is a genuinely unique DnD thing. Sure, it's loosely inspired by Mallory's Death of Arthur (by Galahad more than Arthur himself) and Song of Roland, and the oath is somewhat reminiscent of monastic crusading orders, but no one before DnD combined these ingredients in quite this way.

If anything, I'd rather sacrifice cleric, but then we'd loose full divine caster.

That said, if prestige classes were to come back, I can see paladin being one that has cleric/fighter as base.

[elyktsorb]

In an abstract simplified sense maybe.

they're different archetypes however: the cleric is someone who prays to a god as a servant of their will, believing in a higher cause and principles- in all likelihood the cleric never expected to actually be GRANTED such power, they just believe in the cause so much that they were found worthy of it. its a reward for their dedication that only happens because they had faith in that power so much that it was given to them. the cleric buys in to the deity or cause long before the deity places such power in them.


This implies to me, that clerics in dnd are like clergy in the real world. Which to me, they are not. I fully expect that clerics in dnd do think their gods will grant them power based on their faith. Primarily because dnd gods do not work like a regular god would.


Likewise, I also think that Warlocks are also granted powers based on some level of faith. Sure, the interaction is more like a goods and services kind of deal, but as I said about, that's how I believe it works for clerics too, clerics just have that 'façade' of it being more of a song and dance. Because that's how they expect it to work because that's just how it was set up.

After all, the Warlock has to have some level of faith that this deal with this 'outside force' is going to bear fruit for them, if they didn't believe it would work, they wouldn't try it, since they could go become a cleric or a druid if they just needed power and are willing to do anything, why become a warlock? Because it is assumed that a Warlock will have to give up something, or do specific things for their patron (sure, in a game this may never come up, or may be part of the backstory) is it just that the deal could be instant?

Furthermore, I also sort of believe that you could become a cleric or druid by making a deal with one of the deity's in more of a sudden exchanging of goods and services thing, I don't think that you need to specifically make a whole class to highlight that interaction between a deity and a character. And to my knowledge, I don't think the actual deity's care how you get there as long as you serve them faithfully.

[Curbludgeon]

I don't really see any species or the notion of class as being especially iconic to Dungeons and Dragons. As long as a few of the expected terms get used (saving throw, armor class, hit points, magic missile, arguably the 6 stats, a couple of the product identity specific monsters) then it's getting pretty close.

[Selion]

Human, Elf, Dwarf

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard

Everything else is spice

+ Halfling

[Jak]

To feel like D&D?

Classes: rogue, ranger, fighter, monk, druid, and maybe barbarian.

Weird list, probably, but it somewhat reflects my first D&D experience (which was 3.5.)

Races? Half elves, elves, dwarves, halflings.

These may seem to be missing some basics, but I feel like this is what is needed for the feel of D&D to be there. It reminds me of "ghost notes" in music, (term?) Where your brain inserts notes in a given tune that aren't actually played. So, it feels like humans are around (presumably that's how you make half elves,) but it doesn't feel too odd that no one is playing one. Same with cleric.
Wizard... I don't know why it doesn't feel essential to D&D for me. It was originally on my list, but D&D doesn't feel weird without it.

[Chronos]

Classes: Fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard.

You can rename some of these: "rogue" might be "thief", for instance (as it was back in the day), and "wizard" could be "mage". I do think that it's important that the arcane spellcaster be Int-based, and that they consider looted spellbooks to be valuable treasure, though: That's part of the core identity of the class. Those four are the key, since any other class ends up being described as "filling the fighter role", or whatever, but of course you can and probably should extend it further. If I were adding more classes, they'd be, in order, druid, bard, ranger, paladin, sorcerer. Anything beyond that (such as barbarian, warlock, monk, ninja, beguiler, shugenja...) is strictly optional: You can include them if you really want, but they're mostly redundant.

Races: Human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome.

I don't know why everyone always leaves gnome off the list. They've been in the game from the beginning, and have a distinct identity from any of the others, and are traditionally a PC race rather than an enemy. Half-races are unnecessary: In any case where two different races can have offspring, you can just say that the children are mechanically one of the parent races, with some superficial traits of the other. And the game is likely to expand to eventually include orcs, goblins, kobolds, xvarts, planetouched, dragonborn, yuan-ti, warforged, and everything else imaginable, but those can wait for expansions.

[Eldariel]

I'd definitely add Paladin to the class list - it's not vitally important for the game to function, but it is a genuinely unique DnD thing. Sure, it's loosely inspired by Mallory's Death of Arthur (by Galahad more than Arthur himself) and Song of Roland, and the oath is somewhat reminiscent of monastic crusading orders, but no one before DnD combined these ingredients in quite this way.

If anything, I'd rather sacrifice cleric, but then we'd loose full divine caster.

That said, if prestige classes were to come back, I can see paladin being one that has cleric/fighter as base.

Honestly, I kinda prefer 2e style where Priest had lesser spell progression. That allows putting class resources into combat and having them actually mean something. You could call that "Paladin" and have it be the primary divine caster.

[Notafish]

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard

Covers the five interesting stats and subtypes can be flavored as Rangers, Paladins, Barbarians, Druids, etc. (the modern Chi-based monk doesn't really fit anywhere in this layout, but a Martial Arts Rogue would fit the underlying concept)

Races don't need to be standard - if you are playing in the Forgotten Realms, it's one thing, but you could have an all-Sleestak adventuring party and it would still feel like D&D if one had a sword, one had a dagger, and another had spells.

[stoutstien]

The archetypes that i think are fundamentally part of the core dnd culture:
- the strong, brave, and sturdy one. Hits stuff hard with some form of weapon

- the wiggle fingers. Arcane Magic and probably a funny hat

-the divine and driven.

- quick hands and soft feet. Doubles down are the mundane problem solver when magic, might, and deities fail to deliver.

[Millstone85]

Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome

Because Bilbo and Frodo could just as well have been gnomes.

As for classes...

Warrior, expert, mage and three half-blends between them.
Yes, this. I would like the game to recognize its actual three pillars: swords, skills and spells. With classes to showcase each one and their combinations, like...




Fighter

Paladin
or Hexblade

Druid
or Cleric



non-caster
Ranger

1/2 cast Bard
or Artificer





Rogue

[Ulsan Krow]

Human (basic race)
Elf (elegant race)
Dwarf (brutish race)
Halfling (humble/underdog race)

Fighter (STR/CON/DEX physical fighty person/warrior)
Wizard (INT knowledgeable magic person/adept)
Rogue (DEX/INT/CHA skillful person/expert)
Cleric (WIS/CHA supportive divine person)

[Tanarii]

Bards have become so synonymous with DnD over the years that it's hard to exclude them in my opinion.Yes they're synonymous with D&D, but as an long running gag. They're bad for the brand IMO.


Warlock is conceptually just a ClericThis makes no sense. Warlocks are conceptually Wizards that made a deal with the Devil. They're nothing like Clerics.


I don't know why everyone always leaves gnome off the list. They've been in the game from the beginning, and have a distinct identity from any of the others, and are traditionally a PC race rather than an enemy.Because they're weren't a PC race until AD&D, and they didn't have a really distinct identity until Dragonlance and Tinker Gnomes. Originally they were just a variant dwarf. Then even though they got a slightly distinct identity in AD&D, they were still viewed as "shorter dwarves that can be illusionists". And BECMI they remained variant dwarves.

Don't get me wrong, I very much like 4e and 5e gnomes. But that's because I think they fixed gnomes by finally countering the legacy of tinker/wow gnomes, but also just made them awesome.

[Ulsan Krow]

Yes they're synonymous with D&D, but as an long running gag. They're bad for the brand IMO.

This makes no sense. Warlocks are conceptually Wizards that made a deal with the Devil. They're nothing like Clerics.

He means the whole 'getting your power from another entity' deal

[Tanarii]

He means the whole 'getting your power from another entity' deal
That's a poor basis for the comparison, especially given that one is either stolen or bargained for arcane knowledge that enables the casting of spells, and the other is granted and channeled divine power that directly causes an effect.

And archetypically, Warlocks are Faust, not Cardinal Richelieu or Aramis.

[Millstone85]

He means the whole 'getting your power from another entity' dealI initially gravitated toward the magobabble aspects of the matter.

As I see it, divine magic has a cycle where (1) the faithful shape the flow of mana into (2) astral storms that evolve into (3) astral domains that may then be claimed by, or give birth to, (4) deities. At any point during this development, (5) clerics and other spellcasters may tap into this well of power and use it to have more people join (go to 1) the faithful.

Presumably, pact magic is a separate process. The patron teaches magical secrets to the warlock, and/or gives the warlock some of their blood to make them somewhat sorcerous, and/or calls upon the power of the Ruby Rod, the Kolyarut and other cosmic keystones of Law to share a part of their power as per the terms of the pact. Or something.

However, not everyone cares about such magobabble, and it sure didn't work with my group. The other PCs simply saw mine as a cultist with a weird alien god, or in short an edgy cleric.

Maybe I just didn't explore the themes properly.

[False God]

That's a poor basis for the comparison, especially given that one is either stolen or bargained for arcane knowledge that enables the casting of spells, and the other is granted and channeled divine power that directly causes an effect.

And archetypically, Warlocks are Faust, not Cardinal Richelieu or Aramis.

Yeah but you're implying a lot of roleplaying that isn't mechanically enforced.

[Notafish]

Yes [bards are] synonymous with D&D, but as an long running gag. They're bad for the brand IMO.

I think bards can be played quite seriously, even when they are filling the "entertainer" role. There's lots of running gags with them, but there are plenty of other running gags for the other classes that can get in the way of fun if someone tries to push an unwanted trope. Nerdy wizards, fundamentalist clerics, stupid fighters, greedy rogues...

There also is plenty of tradition behind including a bard or a skald in heroic fantasy (and having them do things other than being annoying).

And, the chance that "I roll to seduce the dragon" might come up is a core appeal of the brand, imo, even if it doesn't fit the character of many actual campaigns. If goofy horniness is on the table I'd rather it being the bard doing it than one of the other charisma-casters.

[Tanarii]

However, not everyone cares about such magobabble, and it sure didn't work with my group. The other PCs simply saw mine as a cultist with a weird alien god, or in short an edgy cleric.

Maybe I just didn't explore the themes properly.


Yeah but you're implying a lot of roleplaying that isn't mechanically enforced.

It's thematically & characterization different (studious vs devotion) and also an entirely different skill set (arcane blaster vs divine buff/heals). I just don't see how anyone can confuse a Warlock for a Cleric instead of a Wizard/Sorcerer, unless the warlock player is going out of their way and making a large extra effort to characterize themselves as a devout cultist of an alien god.

[Millstone85]

If goofy horniness is on the table I'd rather it being the bard doing it than one of the other charisma-casters.I think it suits the paladin well too. "Will you ride with me, fair lady, that together we celebrate the glory of Sune?" *rolls a 1* "Ah, Lady Firehair smiles not upon me today."

[diplomancer]

It's thematically & characterization different (studious vs devotion) and also an entirely different skill set (arcane blaster vs divine buff/heals). I just don't see how anyone can confuse a Warlock for a Cleric instead of a Wizard/Sorcerer, unless the warlock player is going out of their way and making a large extra effort to characterize themselves as a devout cultist of an alien god.

This. A warlock could be the founder of a religion. But once it's established, those who follow it and get power from the deities of said religion would be clerics.

[Tanarii]

There also is plenty of tradition behind including a bard or a skald in heroic fantasy (and having them do things other than being annoying)Yes there is, and I've seen well played bards.

But that doesn't stop Troubadour Bards from being the Kender and Tinker Gnomes of classes. Hated by some, beloved by a few, and considered a joke by the masses.

That said, 5e went a long way to establishing a good name for Bards, for the first edition ever. But like my position on Gnomes, that doesn't justify them being core D&D IMO.

Important reminder this is all very IMO. :smallamused:


Human (basic race)
Elf (elegant race)
Dwarf (brutish race)
Halfling (humble/underdog race)Interesting take on the race themes, or if you prefer, on the themes of races needed.

Although I'd probably go with "stout race" for Dwarf. Or stout and strong. Brutish implies the Humanoid races in general and specific ones in particular (Orc, Hobgoblin,Bugbear, Ogre). Or maybe a Hill Giant.

[Millstone85]

This. A warlock could be the founder of a religion. But once it's established, those who follow it and get power from the deities of said religion would be clerics.Well, I eventually rolled with it and my character effectively started a new religion (by hijacking the Order of Blue Flame (https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Order_of_Blue_Flame), but still), establishing my patron as a surface version of Ghaunadaur.

Don't worry, it was a short-lived grasp at divinity. :smallsigh:

[False God]

It's thematically & characterization different (studious vs devotion) and also an entirely different skill set (arcane blaster vs divine buff/heals). I just don't see how anyone can confuse a Warlock for a Cleric instead of a Wizard/Sorcerer, unless the warlock player is going out of their way and making a large extra effort to characterize themselves as a devout cultist of an alien god.

Because the themes are very close. "Guy who gets their power by praying to a more powerful being a lot." vs "Guy who gets their power by making a deal with a more powerful being." The fact that they get different skills or different spells is only visible from a meta-perspective.

A lot of people don't go further than introducing their character as "Jim, the elf warlock!" or "Sue, the dwarf cleric!" Because, again, D&D's "You must role-play this much to play this game." bar is pretty gosh darned low. D&D also tends to encourage very little "secret"(I perfer the term "personal" or "private") information between players, or to say it conversely, it doesn't encourage players to learn about other characters in an organic in-game way. It tends to assume (and arguably encourage) that Tom, Rick and Kerrie and all their PCs are all aware of each other's character builds, skills, and spell selection before play.

But from a more in-game role-play perspective, the guy who prays every morning to a some being and the guy who sneaks off in the dark of the night to talk to some being are not that different looking. The other PCs are not aware of what's in that strange tome they're carrying around, why that weapon has strange symbols on it and they may not speak whatever language they occasionally hear the PC in question speaking.

You're relying on meta-game information(different role-play fluff, different skills, different spells, etc..) to make in-game determinations about the differences between two characters.

[Tanarii]

Because the themes are very close. "Guy who gets their power by praying to a more powerful being a lot." vs "Guy who gets their power by making a deal with a more powerful being." The fact that they get different skills or different spells is only visible from a meta-perspective.

By this metric, all six Martial classes are the same because they hit things.

Edit: In fact, with half a seconds thought that's not just glib, it's very astute of me.

To the average player (out of game) and NPC (in game), Martials that stab things should appear far more indistinguishable than a Cleric from a Warlock/Sorcerer/Wizard. Unless the warlock player is going out of their way to play a cultist or a (temple approved) priest.

[False God]

By this metric, all six Martial classes are the same because they hit things.

You're right, they ARE close.

If Joe builds a Dex-based Fighter and Jan builds a bog-standard rogue, they may look an awful lot alike.
If Phil builds a bog-standard Barbarian and Luke builds a min/maxed strength fighter, they may look an awful lot alike.

It's a PROBLEM, a problem that a number of people have pointed out for years, across multiple editions. The dividing lines between many classes are thin, and if often makes the design space more limited, instead of expanding it, because any deviation from the "standard" build starts stepping on the toes of other classes.

This is, actually, why in my first post in this thread, I TLDR'd to the conclusion that I'd probably eliminate most of the classes in the game. 4 races, with several sub variants, 4 classes, with several sub variants.

[Rukelnikov]

To be dnd, it needs the classics:

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbits

Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Priest

[Thrudd]

This implies to me, that clerics in dnd are like clergy in the real world. Which to me, they are not. I fully expect that clerics in dnd do think their gods will grant them power based on their faith. Primarily because dnd gods do not work like a regular god would.


Likewise, I also think that Warlocks are also granted powers based on some level of faith. Sure, the interaction is more like a goods and services kind of deal, but as I said about, that's how I believe it works for clerics too, clerics just have that 'façade' of it being more of a song and dance. Because that's how they expect it to work because that's just how it was set up.

After all, the Warlock has to have some level of faith that this deal with this 'outside force' is going to bear fruit for them, if they didn't believe it would work, they wouldn't try it, since they could go become a cleric or a druid if they just needed power and are willing to do anything, why become a warlock? Because it is assumed that a Warlock will have to give up something, or do specific things for their patron (sure, in a game this may never come up, or may be part of the backstory) is it just that the deal could be instant?

Furthermore, I also sort of believe that you could become a cleric or druid by making a deal with one of the deity's in more of a sudden exchanging of goods and services thing, I don't think that you need to specifically make a whole class to highlight that interaction between a deity and a character. And to my knowledge, I don't think the actual deity's care how you get there as long as you serve them faithfully.

I agree. There's no reason anyone in most D&D worlds would not be aware that magic powers granted by deities existed. It's possible some people are just so dedicated to a cause that a deity "chooses" them to receive magic powers even though they weren't expecting them, but there's no reason that most clerics would be that way. If there are religious organizations in a D&D setting, the people who join up certainly are aware of the possibility of being granted magic by the deity they serve.

The problem with trying to equate D&D classes to real-world myths of magic users is that in real-world legendarium, there's really no distinction there. Pretty much all "magic" in legend comes from gods or the powerful spirits that serve gods in one way or another. A "sorcerer" or "magician" or "warlock" is someone who gets powers from a "bad" god or dangerous spirit (aka a "demon") that isn't one of the ones "our people" worships. A priest or miracle worker or prophet is somebody who gets magic powers from "our gods" and does things the "correct" way. That other tribe across the river, they do "dark magic" with their "strange gods", but we worship the "true gods" who give our priests and heroes the ability to perform "miracles". Actually, the guys on the other side of the river are doing almost the exact same sort of stuff we are, they just dress differently, speak a different language, and their art looks different. We tell our people that it's "illegal" to do stuff the way people over there do things, because it's not how "our gods" want us to do things.

Classical and Medieval "magicians", the inspiration for D&D wizards, were trying to come up with the formulas and rituals that would let them reliably convince/command gods and/or their spirit servants to perform specific acts. Sometimes they would look to gods that they heard about from other cultures, and this especially would get them in trouble with their own people - but regardless of whether they were experimenting with "bad" gods or their own, they weren't doing things according to proscribed ritual, and therefore were usually condemned for their practices by authorities and had to keep it somewhat on the DL. Of course, a lot of rulers, even though they knew it wasn't officially endorsed, would hire these guys, just in case they could actually do what they said they could...

In D&D, there is a real distinction in the forms magic can take and the way it is manipulated. Wizards don't get magic from gods or spirits at all, but learn how to manipulate reality with formulas and "science", presumably in a similar way that naturally magical creatures and gods do inherently. Sorcerers are among those "naturally magical creatures", who just are just naturally aware of the magical fabric of reality in a way they don't really need to think about, and their powers grow as they experiment with their own force of will and their magical environment.

Clerics agree to serve a powerful being that their world recognizes as a "deity" in return for being given access to magical powers. It would seem that these are usually beings who seek to influence large numbers of people in the world and have organizations dedicated to doing their bidding, or at least have vast, creative, reality altering powers. Warlocks also agree to serve a powerful being in return for powers, but it seems these beings are not recognized as deities and don't have large followings. Perhaps they aren't quite as powerful as deities (at least in the PC's world), or are more distant, which is why they can't offer the same sort of powers and number of spells.

A druid is in tune with "nature", which in D&D has magic weaving through it, like everything else does - so while they may not start out as inherently magical beings like sorcerers are, they learn how to "feel the force" that binds the material world together, as it were, and let it "flow through them" - they're connecting specifically to the power of the inner planes/elements. That's the distinction between a druid and a cleric of a nature deity - a cleric gets powers from a deity that controls or guides nature, a druid learns (via "feeling" rather than intellect, like a wizard) how to manipulate the fabric of the material world that a nature deity can control or might have created.

Bards seem to be somewhat like wizards, in the sense that they have "colleges" where they would supposedly learn how to use words and sounds in a specific way to manipulate the magical fabric, but they do not rely on intellect. So they are also similar to sorcerers, in the sense that they must have an inherent force of will and magical "intuition" capable of manipulating things without knowledge of the magical "physics" formulas that make it work, but it is a learned skill that anyone could practice rather than something in their blood that they just awaken to one day.

[Tanarii]

This is, actually, why in my first post in this thread, I TLDR'd to the conclusion that I'd probably eliminate most of the classes in the game. 4 races, with several sub variants, 4 classes, with several sub variants.
Ya, I think it's telling that the majority of posters in this thread agree on the classic four. The debate about if a warlock is more like a mage or more like a priest is sorta academic from that point of view. It's still just trying to slot them into one of the core four of stabby guy, studious magic, divinely granted magic, and skills guy.

The real interesting part is that stabby guy is often paired with skilled guy in the form of agile stabby guy. And ranged guy is often paired with either or both. Especially (in both cases) in wotc editions, when Rogues gained some ability to hang in melee combat.

In fact, you could make a good argument for 5 core classes:
Physical Melee
Physical Ranged
Magical offense
Magical defense/heals
Skills / Utility

Possibly with magical CC as a sixth.

[Rafaelfras]

For races human elf dwarf hobbit and half orc.
For classes wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue.
I wouldn't even bother if it hadn't wizard in it.
As to the warlock and priests, getting a miracle through prayer and making a pact with an entity are really not remotely the same.

[Thrudd]

Ya, I think it's telling that the majority of posters in this thread agree on the classic four. The debate about if a warlock is more like a mage or more like a priest is sorta academic from that point of view. It's still just trying to slot them into one of the core four of stabby guy, studious magic, divinely granted magic, and skills guy.

The real interesting part is that stabby guy is often paired with skilled guy in the form of agile stabby guy. And ranged guy is often paired with either or both. Especially (in both cases) in wotc editions, when Rogues gained some ability to hang in melee combat.

Yeah, I dont think "agile stabby guy" is really a "core" thing. Skilled/Sneaky guy gets one powerful but extremely conditional stabby power, most of their utility is traditionally in overcoming environmental hazards and gathering intel, with a little bit of versatility in using other people's magic items.

Fighting guy (including both/either stabby and ranged), Studious (mostly offensive and utility) magic, Divine (mostly protective) magic, and Skilled/Sneaky guy, I'd say are the main D&D archetypes.

Fighting guy has top tier fighting skill. Divine guy has middle tier (mostly protective) magic and middle tier fighting. Sneaky guy has utility skills and middle tier fighting. Studious guy has top tier magic (mostly offensive and utility) and low tier fighting.

Ranged guy is mostly going to be fighting guy or skilled guy, but fighting guy should still probably be a bit better at it. sneaky guy doesn't usually have the strength to bother with bows, and both bows and crossbows are too heavy and cumbersome to sneak around with, so their ranged fighting is probably going to be small throwing weapons (hand crossbows are stupid and wouldn't be worthwhile unless you were using poisoned darts at close range).

Races- meh. I suppose we have to say Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling - but I'm honestly tired of Tolkien-aping fantasy worlds and wish we could go back to classic Swords & Sorcery and keep non-humans as mysterious things existing on the fringes. But it has been in D&D from the beginning, Mystara and those great old Capcom D&D beat-em ups have them, so we're stuck with it. Regardless, a Star Wars cantina-like menagerie definitely doesn't feel like "essential" D&D to me.

[Stangler]

Core D&D races IMO is really just Tolkien, so Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling.

Core classes are Tolkien + so Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, and Rogue.

That said I think One D&D should develop past Tolkien+ and embrace mythology and fantasy beyond Europe and Tolkien within the PHB. They should develop 3 baseline settings to discuss along the way to show how the races and classes are flexible.

[Tanarii]

Races- meh. I suppose we have to say Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling - but I'm honestly tired of Tolkien-aping fantasy worlds and wish we could go back to classic Swords & Sorcery and keep non-humans as mysterious things existing on the fringes. But it has been in D&D from the beginning, Mystara and those great old Capcom D&D beat-em ups have them, so we're stuck with it. Regardless, a Star Wars cantina-like menagerie definitely doesn't feel like "essential" D&D to me.
I generally agree, although I don't mind there being a non-human contingent. I'd just like something like an assumption that humans are 75% of the civilized (human and Demi-human) population, and reflected in adventuring parties too. As opposed to the current assumption that it's 25% human, 50% elf/dwarf/halfling, and 25% other. I'd love to see something that made being non-human a difficult choice that players made because they really want to play one. But that's not going to happen.

I always found BECMI was almost always humans. Partially because that was the only way to be a Magic User, Cleric or Rogue. But also because of the level limit. The latter made humans very popular in AD&D too IMX, although not as much as BECMI, since non-humans could be things other than Fighters and especially because they could multiclass as something/thief with unlimited advancement on thief.

[Ignimortis]

Species - required:
Human - has to be there.
Elf - who wants to play magical elves without elves?
Dwarf - this guy, that's who.
Halfling - personally, I don't like Small species, but there are people who want them, and Halfling is way more classic than Gnome.

Species - would be nice:
Orc - you either double down on orcs being crazy pillaging forces of evil who don't actually have a cohesive society and operate mostly on rule of might, and don't make them a player option. Or, well, just make them available instead of half-orcs.
Warforged - for that dash of "unusual both mechanically and narratively". One of the best things that actually did come from D&D instead of just being riffs on common fantasy tropes.

Classes - required:
Fighter - just the name and general idea, but not the mechanics.
Wizard - just the name, not the mechanics.
Cleric - ditto.

Classes - conditional:
Rogue - if you think that being good at skills and Fighters somehow don't mix.
Barbarian - if your Fighter actually has complex mechanics and you still need a simple melee brute class.
Sorcerer - if you actually are willing to make spell slots a non-universal mechanic and have a caster that doesn't work through them. Otherwise it's just a Great Value Wizard.
Bard - if you actually find a mechanical idea for Bard that isn't just "jack of all trades, now magical".

Classes - completely unnecessary:
Paladin, Ranger, Druid.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

To be dnd, it needs the classics:

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbits

Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Priest

Mapping that onto the current PHB would look something like this. I'm a fan of having some redundancy so that each archetype can be more explored

Human
-- Human
-- Half Elf

Elf
-- Elf
-- Tiefling?

Dwarf
--Dwarf
-- Dragonborn
-- Half-Orc

Hobbits
--Gnomes
--Halflings

Fighter
--Barbarian
--Fighter
--Monk?
--Ranger?

Rouge
-- Bard
--Rouge
-- Ranger?

Mage
-- Wizard
-- Sorcerer
--Warlock?

Priest
-- Cleric
--Druid
--Paladin
--Warlock?
-- Monk?

[Phhase]

I don't really see the need to not include anything that isn't being changed and wasn't already there. Why limit ourselves?

[KorvinStarmast]

Class:
Fighter (add Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin sub class as necessary)
Magic User - warlock, sorcerer, wizard. Pick one, not all three.
Cleric - add Druid sub class as necessary
Thief/Rogue - add Bard sub class or not as necessary.

Monk: sorry, as much as I love me some 5e monk, and I do, not strictly necessary.

[Tanarii]

Class:
Fighter (add Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin sub class as necessary)

Thief/Rogue - add Bard sub class or not as necessary.
Can always tell when someone's old school, they still think of Ranger as a type of Fighter instead of a type of Rogue. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Can always tell when someone's old school, they still think of Ranger as a type of Fighter instead of a type of Rogue. :smallbiggrin: It worked well enough, but it was a real bear to qualify for (minimum scores and all that). I wonder if Ranger should have been rebuilt as a prestige class. :smallconfused:

[Ulsan Krow]

Barbarian - subsumes into fighter
Bard - rogue with wizard
Druid - subsumes into cleric
Monk - wtf. Fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric
Paladin - fighter with cleric
Ranger - fighter with rogue
Sorcerer - subsumes into wizard
Warlock - cleric with wizard

[Millstone85]

I am going to do a 4e-ism. :smalleek:

Three classes, times four "sources", equal twelve subclasses.





Fighter
Rogue
Mage


Arcane
Gish
Bard
Wizard


Divine
Paladin
Monk
Cleric


Primal
Barbarian
Ranger
Druid


Resolute
Champion
Scoundrel
Sorcerer



Explanation on the sorcerer: All mages begin their training essentially the same. Later on, some start a grimoire, pray to the gods, or commune with nature, while others discover that the initial methods still push them forward.

[Kane0]

The big one
The smart one
The leader
The foil
The heart

[Ulsan Krow]

I am going to do a 4e-ism. :smalleek:

Three classes, times four "sources", equal twelve subclasses.





Fighter
Rogue
Mage


Arcane
Gish
Bard
Wizard


Divine
Paladin
Monk
Cleric


Primal
Barbarian
Ranger
Druid


Resolute
Champion
Scoundrel
Sorcerer



Explanation on the sorcerer: All mages begin their training essentially the same. Later on, some start a grimoire, pray to the gods, or commune with nature, while others discover that the initial methods still push them forward.


Unf very nice. Where warlock though. Does it go under divine or arcane

[Ulsan Krow]

The big one
The smart one
The leader
The foil
The heart


True tried and tested classic. I prefer the term lancer to foil though for fantasy settings

Big one - barbarian/fighter if no barb
Smart one - wizard always
Leader - fighter/paladin/ranger
Lancer - rogue
Heart - cleric

[Brookshw]

It worked well enough, but it was a real bear to qualify for (minimum scores and all that). I wonder if Ranger should have been rebuilt as a prestige class. :smallconfused:

Probably. Guess it would have been interesting to see all subclasses/kits as prestiges.

[HidesHisEyes]

The big one
The smart one
The leader
The foil
The heart

Best answer in this thread. I’ve heard the foil called “the lancer” although I never understood why.

[Millstone85]

Unf very nice. Where warlock though. Does it go under divine or arcaneThank you. However, yes, that leaves the warlock undetermined. Could be a mage subclass, or a rogue subclass. Default assumption would be arcane, but again a fey patron could deepen one's link with nature, while a fiend could basically make you a ur-priest.

[tiornys]

Best answer in this thread. I’ve heard the foil called “the lancer” although I never understood why.
From the TVTropes entry on The Lancer: "This trope is named for the man-at-arms of The Middle Ages, the term for a professional soldier. While the term also encompasses the members of the knightly class, a man-at-arms was not necessarily a knight. They were also men of lesser financial and social status than knights, but were equally trained and equipped to fight on horseback in full armour and with sword and lance, just like their social superiors. In this regard, he is most recognizable as King Arthur's greatest warrior and right-hand man, Sir Kay, according to the source Welsh legends (and who was later demoted to comic relief)."

[Sigreid]

To me to feel like D&D

Races: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling (the old pudgy famer type)
Classes: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief (sure, call it rogue if you like)

And if it were up to me, all classes would be subclasses of the big 4 archetypes. Preferably a few levels in you select your subclass that will change how you evolve. For example, mage would be the standard book worm for the first 4 levels. At level 5 they would pick their subclass and if they chose wizard, they'd continue the same way spell wise where if they chose sorcerer, they would still be able to memorize spells levels 1 and 2, but levels 3 and above would be spells known with some advantage for their more innate understanding of those spells. Fighters would start with Martial weapons and Medium armor proficiency and depending on if they chose to advance as a fighter, knight, barbarian, planar champion or whatever they would either get more direct combat proficiency or special abilities like Rage or the ability to bypass resistances and vulnerabilities etc.

[False God]

Ya, I think it's telling that the majority of posters in this thread agree on the classic four. The debate about if a warlock is more like a mage or more like a priest is sorta academic from that point of view. It's still just trying to slot them into one of the core four of stabby guy, studious magic, divinely granted magic, and skills guy.

The real interesting part is that stabby guy is often paired with skilled guy in the form of agile stabby guy. And ranged guy is often paired with either or both. Especially (in both cases) in wotc editions, when Rogues gained some ability to hang in melee combat.

In fact, you could make a good argument for 5 core classes:
Physical Melee
Physical Ranged
Magical offense
Magical defense/heals
Skills / Utility

Possibly with magical CC as a sixth.

My bigger problem is that I have trouble breaking up martials at all, but I don't want to see one "omni" martial class against 3+ caster classes.

I would probably see it at:
Two martial:
Weapon-martial
Skill-martial
Two caster:
Wizard (covers Warlock)
Cleric (covers Druid)
*Sorcerer & Psion become variant casting potions, the former altering normal Vancing slots and spells known and the later replacing it entirely with spellpoints. So you could have a "Psionic Warlock" or a "Sorcerous Druid".
Two hybrid:
Pick your caster, mix with your flavor of martial.
-Could be done with simple MC rules though, back to a good old 4 and 4, two martial, two caster.

With more design space to any one class, you could allow a lot more bleedthrough, ie: Wizardy-Warlocks, Clericy-Druids without needing each sub-class to have 100% it's own design space and without people demanding that everything must be terribly distinct. The overlapping spot in the center would be the "generalist" Fighter or Rogue, Wizard or Cleric.

I'd also be inclined to divide the classes up into tiers of play, with pure martials being intended for say, 1-10, and pure casters being intended for 11+. Pure casters are weak and squishy at low levels, while pure martials can't dish out or can't address enough situations at the top, with the end result being that the MC/hybrid classes do well in the middle 5-15. And I'd make this clear to the players to help them get a feel for what sort of game they'll experience at various levels and how an "average, by the book, no nonsense, no cheese" character is expected to perform.

[Tanarii]

The big one
The smart one
The leader
The foil
The heartOr the 8 bit standard.

The evil one
The dumb one
The greedy one
The min maxer

With occasional intrusions by the Tagalongs, by The good one and The other dumb one.

[Zevox]

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, (Half-)Orc.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger.

I'd say that's my personal bare minimum, and even then I'm leaving off things that I really think should be there (Monk, Sorcerer, Half-Elf), they just don't quite rise to the level of must.

[Sigreid]

Or the 8 bit standard.

The evil one
The dumb one
The greedy one
The min maxer

With occasional intrusions by the Tagalongs, by The good one and The other dumb one.

Isn't this just the normal player group? :smallbiggrin:

[Makorel]

Thank you. However, yes, that leaves the warlock undetermined. Could be a mage subclass, or a rogue subclass. Default assumption would be arcane, but again a fey patron could deepen one's link with nature, while a fiend could basically make you a ur-priest.

You could also add another power source. Darkness maybe, for the edgey ones.

[Rukelnikov]

It worked well enough, but it was a real bear to qualify for (minimum scores and all that). I wonder if Ranger should have been rebuilt as a prestige class. :smallconfused:

3e Unearthed Arcana presented the option for Paladin, Ranger and Bard as PrCs. Never played with it, but it made sense.

[Ulsan Krow]

You could also add another power source. Darkness maybe, for the edgey ones.


Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal and Occult

[Thrudd]

Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal and Occult

arcane and occult are basically the same thing. They are both describing "secret/mysterious" magic. In D&D/fantasy, there'd be no difference between arcane science and occult study.

[pwykersotz]

Huh, this question stumped me for a bit.

I don't think there is a particular class or race that's necessary to feel like D&D. D&D is an aggregate of things, of which you can include race and class. If you get a certain percentage of things that D&D is well known for and combine them, as long as you reach over a certain subjective percentage, you're playing D&D in my opinion. You could eliminate literally any aspsect of the game, no matter how fundamental, and still be playing it if you keep enough other things.

Eliminating the D20? Stats? Quests? All classes? Allowing only one race that's completely homebrew? All still D&D as long as you keep enough other elements. Now if you did all of them at once? Maybe that would tip the scales.

Just my thoughts. Fun question.

[Chronos]

Quoth Tanarii:

That said, 5e went a long way to establishing a good name for Bards, for the first edition ever.
Not really. 5e doesn't even have bards any more-- They just have a different version of sorcerers, that can learn a larger variety of spells and have some minor buffs instead of metamagic. 5e bards don't include anything of what makes bards bards. I mean, sure, you can carry a lute, but then, so can a wizard, and a 5e bard who doesn't have an instrument, or any other sort of performance, isn't mechanically any different from one who does.

[Millstone85]

arcane and occult are basically the same thing. They are both describing "secret/mysterious" magic. In D&D/fantasy, there'd be no difference between arcane science and occult study.While you are absolutely correct on the first part, many stories still manage to give the arcane library a forbidden section, with books that offer faster but more dangerous paths to power. So I could see the warlock as this mage who has "abandoned the arcane for the truly occult".





Fighter
Rogue
Mage


Occult
Blackguard
Hexblade
Warlock



Alternatively, we embrace the perception of the warlock as an edgy divine caster, like a divine rogue, and give the monk a different power source.





Fighter
Rogue
Mage


Divine
Paladin
Warlock
Cleric


Ki / Psi
Kensei
Monk
Mystic



All I am really saying is that it is an easy way to generate options under three combat roles, although it does imply quite a bit of core worldbuilding for this hypothetical new edition.

[Tanarii]

Not really. 5e doesn't even have bards any more-- They just have a different version of sorcerers, that can learn a larger variety of spells and have some minor buffs instead of metamagic. 5e bards don't include anything of what makes bards bards. I mean, sure, you can carry a lute, but then, so can a wizard, and a 5e bard who doesn't have an instrument, or any other sort of performance, isn't mechanically any different from one who does.Unfortunately, they have to overcome the baggage that is the Troubadour Bard somehow.

Even having the only two 5e core subclasses be Druidic Lore/Diplomat Bard and Viking Skald Bard wasn't enough. I guess they could have leaned the entire base class into that more.

[Devils_Advocate]

As to the warlock and priests, getting a miracle through prayer and making a pact with an entity are really not remotely the same.
I'm pretty sure that religion often involves trying to gain divine favor through obedience, sacrifice, and/or other things beyond just saying pretty pretty please.

It's like friendship, in a way. Lots of people don't think of it as transactional, and lots of people object to it being described in those terms, but that doesn't mean that such descriptions are entirely wrong. And a relationship that seriously isn't a mutually beneficial exchange of services is not a good relationship for at least one party. It's not something to get away from.


Unf very nice. Where warlock though. Does it go under divine or arcane
Well, Gish is the one that doesn't obviously map to a 5E class. And my understanding is that Hexblade is one of the most popular Warlock pacts. Because half-assed magic with some martial prowess is better than just half-assed magic. Like, leaving implementation aside, just conceptually, even.

So, replace "Gish" with "Hexblade", which does a much better job of communicating "arcane fighter" anyway. Like, it has blades and it has hexes. Combat and curses. Offense in the form of both... eh, you get the idea.


The big one
The smart one
The leader
The foil
The heart
Hmmm....




Ability
Races
Classes


Big
Strength
Half-Orc, Dragonborn
Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter


Smart
Intelligence
Gnome
Wizard, Artificer, Mystic


Leader
Charisma
Half-Elf, Tiefling
Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer


Lancer
Dexterity
Elf, Halfling
Rogue, Ranger, Monk


Heart
Wisdom
Human
Cleric, Druid


Tough?
Constitution
Dwarf
Uh-oh.



For dwarves' sake, let's hope you were talking about classes, because it's hard to see how they have much of a niche. They're not even best at being short!


Isn't this just the normal player group? :smallbiggrin:
"That's the joke."

[Rafaelfras]

I'm pretty sure that religion often involves trying to gain divine favor through obedience, sacrifice, and/or other things beyond just saying pretty pretty please.

It's like friendship, in a way. Lots of people don't think of it as transactional, and lots of people object to it being described in those terms, but that doesn't mean that such descriptions are entirely wrong. And a relationship that seriously isn't a mutually beneficial exchange of services is not a good relationship for at least one party. It's not something to get away from.




Its a life long spiritual relationship, based on faith, worship and devotion to a higher power, the rituals change from religion to religion but the relationship is transcendent, deep, and when you become a cleric this goes to a deeper level. A pact with an otherworldly power has nothing to do with those things. It is a bargain that can (if player and dm are interested in it ofc) goes beyond the backstory of the character but doesn't have to. Its a deal made with a power that granted you magic in exchange of something. It dosent have to be spiritual (besides the contact where the pact is sealed ), doesn't involve worship (as you can even revile the powers involved ) and most important doesn't require faith at all. The magic is yours and you dont have to believe in it, its there and you paid a price for it. They are not the same in any way shape or form.

[Ulsan Krow]

Ability
Races
Classes


Big
Strength
Half-Orc, Dragonborn
Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter


Smart
Intelligence
Gnome
Wizard, Artificer, Mystic


Leader
Charisma
Half-Elf, Tiefling
Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer


Lancer
Dexterity
Elf, Halfling
Rogue, Ranger, Monk


Heart
Wisdom
Human
Cleric, Druid


Tough?
Constitution
Dwarf
Uh-oh.





This is mostly quite accurate but Leader isn't what you think.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand

Think the Red Power Ranger. Or Superman with his Lancer Batman. Or Leo and Raph from the Ninja Turtles. And either Captain America or Iron Man would fill this role for the Avengers depending on who you ask

Leader = usually the firey, passionate 'id' character to the Lancer's colder, collected superego (or vice versa). The main character pretty much. The Lancer is his ideological counterpart.

More frequently its a Fighter or Paladin - a more relatable character who tends to be in the fray hogging the majority of the action, not the (frailer, magical) diplomat.

Bard would be Heart as the wisecracking brevity of the party who glues the other characters together. Sorcerer and Warlock are Smart guy more often than not, sometimes Lancer.

(Also sometimes Heart is unfortunately the Chick in alot of these 5 man/ensemble collectives e.g. Pink Power Ranger or Smurfette. Chick is a defining, separate trope unto itself)

[Schwann145]

Rogue - if you think that being good at skills and Fighters somehow don't mix.

They shouldn't at the core.
Too many people see Rogue and mistake it for "Dex Fighter that knows a trick or two."

I look at Rogue and see Garrett from the Thief games.
You're incredibly good at what you do; namely sneaking, disarming, stealing, etc. You have an assortment of equipment that is both typical and specialized. You are good enough at ambushing people to knock them out or assassinate them. But if you get in a straight up fight with a trained fighter (such as a guard) you're either gonna successfully escape or you're gonna die. Because you can't outfight them. Because they're trained much better than you at fighting.

[Witty Username]

Core Races:
Human

Core classes:
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard

At this point it would still feel like D&D to me, most of the other classes are useful but unnecessary. And the races that resonate as D&D feeling at this point for me are the non-core setting specific ones for me, Draconians, Warforged and Thri-kreen all feel more like what I connect with with d&d races. But they are also setting specific so core doesn't work much for them.

I would also clarify, wizard not wizard/sorcerer, steal the balance point of sorcerer maybe, but sorcerer will not work in the place of wizard (The only d&d video game I didn't like had sorcerer but not wizard). A master of the arcane through discipline and study is at this point necessary for my d&d needs. And sorcerer is very bland from a character perspective.


Can always tell when someone's old school, they still think of Ranger as a type of Fighter instead of a type of Rogue. :smallbiggrin:
They get extra attack and a fighting style as part of their base class, they be a fighter type.

[Ulsan Krow]

Core Races:
Human

Core classes:
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard

At this point it would still feel like D&D to me, most of the other classes are useful but unnecessary. And the races that resonate as D&D feeling at this point for me are the non-core setting specific ones for me, Draconians, Warforged and Thri-kreen all feel more like what I connect with with d&d races. But they are also setting specific so core doesn't work much for them.

I would also clarify, wizard not wizard/sorcerer, steal the balance point of sorcerer maybe, but sorcerer will not work in the place of wizard (The only d&d video game I didn't like had sorcerer but not wizard). A master of the arcane through discipline and study is at this point necessary for my d&d needs. And sorcerer is very bland from a character perspective.


They get extra attack and a fighting style as part of their base class, they be a fighter type.

But they can also do stuff outside of combat, they be a rogue type.

But they can cast a decent amount of spells, they be a spellcaster type.

But they are also useless at high levels, they be a martial type.

But they are also useless at low levels, they be a monk type

[Chronos]

Quoth Tanarii:

Unfortunately, they have to overcome the baggage that is the Troubadour Bard somehow.
No, of course they don't. Why would they have to do that? Troubadour is just another word for bard. If you think troubadours are a bad thing that you want to get away from, then you don't include bards, because that's what they are.

[Tanarii]

No, of course they don't. Why would they have to do that?
Because troubadour bards are why bards are roundly viewed as a joke class. Especially from 2e through 4e.

[Witty Username]

But they can also do stuff outside of combat, they be a rogue type.

But they can cast a decent amount of spells, they be a spellcaster type.

But they are also useless at high levels, they be a martial type.

But they are also useless at low levels, they be a monk type

All of these apply to fighter.

[Pooky the Imp]

For me:

Races:
Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
Half-Orc

Most of these are classics. Half-Orc may be controversial but I think it serves its purpose as a more brutish or wild race. Half-Elf could perhaps be ruled unnecessary, but since I was including half-Orcs it seemed silly not to include them as well.

One thing that may seem strange is the lack of Gnomes, but I've always found them a bit of an odd duck. I know that they have their own lore and such, but I think they're too (physically) similar to Halflings to make sense as a core race. Even more so in the modern ere, when they no longer exist as an intelligence race. Put simply, I think they fail the silhouette test. :smalltongue:

Probably not a popular opinion but that's just how I see it.

Classes:
Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

I think these are the most crucial ones. Honestly, though, I would consider most of the classes to be pretty important. If I was to expand the list a little, it would be:
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

Really, I've only left out a few:
Artificer (Has never been a core class and is thematically suited only to certain settings)
Barbarian (Arguably a classic but at the same time isn't substantially different from a Fighter or Ranger)
Monk (Much as I like this class, it's always felt a little out of place in what is otherwise a heavily European fantasy world. Similar to the artificer, it seems more setting-specific.)
Warlock (Another class I love, but I find it hard to justify it when it's only been a core class since 4th edition, and didn't even exist until 3.5. Mechanically, you could argue that it's more justified than the sorcerer, but that's really a separate argument.).




How would you feel about 2e style over-categories? Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Mage.
Or do the names Fighter and Cleric come with important connotations regarding the kind of features they'd get?

I know this was from a few pages ago but I'd like to offer an answer anyway - it depends on what baggage and restrictions go with those terms.

For example, if those were to become classes, with Ranger just being a subclass of Warrior and Warlocks and Sorcerers just being subclasses of Mage, I think it would greatly shrink the already limited design space.

Similarly, I also wouldn't like to see the return of the 2nd edition paradigm for those classes. e.g. Only fighters can get extra attacks - not Clerics, Rogues or Mages. So if you wanted to play a Swashbuckler (giving up stuff like Sneak Attack in the process), you'd be stuck poking your target just once per turn, even at Epic level.

That sort of thing is too restrictive for my tastes.

[clash]

Races:
Elf
Dwarf
Human

90% of any fantasy roleplaying involves one of the above plus choose 3 exotic races so people can feel really strange.

Tiefling
Tabaxi
Dragonborn

Classes:
Bard
Barbarian
Druid
Priest
Paladin
Sorcerer
Warlock
Ranger
Monk
Rogue

Basically ditching the three classes that never really fit d&d for me: fighter, wizard, and cleric.

Fighter and wizard suffer from the same problem: they have no flavor. Why have a class system if the classes don't bring you any flavor? They are so generic that they eat to a lot of the design space to the point where everyone questions why isn't this other class that actually has flavor just part of this bland flavorless class?

Cleric is just this hodgepodge of abilities that circumvents what I expect a cleric to be. Divine magic? Yes. Healing? Yes. Heavy armor? Ummm. Martial fighting abilities? Why? Like what are they trying to be? I've tried to play a cleric so many times and never come up with a concept that actually fit cleric because of its muddled identity.

Lean into the priest abilities. Lean into channel divinities and divine magic and get rid of the weird stuff that belongs with paladin.

[Ignimortis]

They shouldn't at the core.
Too many people see Rogue and mistake it for "Dex Fighter that knows a trick or two."

I look at Rogue and see Garrett from the Thief games.
You're incredibly good at what you do; namely sneaking, disarming, stealing, etc. You have an assortment of equipment that is both typical and specialized. You are good enough at ambushing people to knock them out or assassinate them. But if you get in a straight up fight with a trained fighter (such as a guard) you're either gonna successfully escape or you're gonna die. Because you can't outfight them. Because they're trained much better than you at fighting.

That would require the game to be much, much, much less about combat. To the point that combat capability is entirely optional to most characters, and the majority of fights are decided by either better initial position or having a person specializing in incredibly violent problem solutions on your team. Sorta like Shadowrun, I guess.

[animorte]

Cleric is just this hodgepodge of abilities that circumvents what I expect a cleric to be. Divine magic? Yes. Healing? Yes. Heavy armor? Ummm. Martial fighting abilities? Why? Like what are they trying to be? I've tried to play a cleric so many times and never come up with a concept that actually fit cleric because of its muddled identity.

Lean into the priest abilities. Lean into channel divinities and divine magic and get rid of the weird stuff that belongs with paladin.

I wholly disagree on the first part because I’ve never had trouble fitting into a the party with what I want/need to do with the Cleric and I’ve always enjoyed the various roles they can play. Of course I also tend to specialize toward a certain theme each time I roll one up, so it’s always a bit different.

I completely agree on the second part. The Paladin has wonderful front line ability and can often be easily replaced by the Cleric just because the Cleric’s ability to do the same.

[clash]

I wholly disagree on the first part because I’ve never had trouble fitting into a the party with what I want/need to do with the Cleric and I’ve always enjoyed the various roles they can play. Of course I also tend to specialize toward a certain theme each time I roll one up, so it’s always a bit different.

I completely agree on the second part. The Paladin has wonderful front line ability and can often be easily replaced by the Cleric just because the Cleric’s ability to do the same.

I fully agree the cleric always fits into a party well mechanically. Just thematically I never have a character where I'm like, the cleric is the best class to build this guy. I think a priest class with monks unarmored defense would fill a better niche in character concepts.

[Witty Username]

Fighter and wizard suffer from the same problem: they have no flavor. Why have a class system if the classes don't bring you any flavor? They are so generic that they eat to a lot of the design space to the point where everyone questions why isn't this other class that actually has flavor just part of this bland flavorless class?


I disagree with this, mostly because one man's flavor is another man's baggage. I would argue sorcerer is the most egregious but this is true of just about any class with strong flavor. For example, say I wanted to play an expert swordsman, fencing sword like a rapier or some such. I could accomplish this with Rogue, Ranger, even something like Barbarian or paladin. But each of these come with baggage like rage or lock picking skills or a knightly order I have to swear an oath to. Fighter allows for characters that don't fit into these more specific concepts. Which transitions into the other reason I feel the generic classes are nice to keep around, they can fill in for archetype that are large enough for characters but not classes that don't fit in an existing archetype. Bladesinger would be my first thought, as it is too specific to be its own class but doesn't slot well into a less generic shell very well.

Now, there is the 3/.5 solution, have a hundred classes to each fill specific brands but I have heard that people don't like that as it gets overwhelming.

I personally prefer generic classes with a multiclassing system, but having seen that, the 3.5 solution and 5e's get alot of milage with subclasses. All feel like D&D to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because troubadour bards are why bards are roundly viewed as a joke class. Especially from 2e through 4e. Amen.

Basically ditching the three classes that never really fit d&d for me: fighter, wizard, and cleric. Face palm. Literally the three classes that the game is built upon. The others are all variations on those themes. (Though rogue is the fourth).
As to your critique on cleric:
Lean into the priest abilities. Lean into channel divinities and divine magic and get rid of the weird stuff that belongs with paladin. Ditch the heavy armor? Sure. :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

That would require the game to be much, much, much less about combat. To the point that combat capability is entirely optional to most characters, and the majority of fights are decided by either better initial position or having a person specializing in incredibly violent problem solutions on your team. Sorta like Shadowrun, I guess.
Or like D&D before WotC, in the minds of grognards into OSR?

To be serious though, if you wanted to seriously be a part of combat in Classic, you built a Fighter. Otherwise you tanked with your armor (Cleric), or hung around the edges with your bow (Thief), or your nothing because you blew your one spell (Magic user).

[clash]

Amen.
Face palm. Literally the three classes that the game is built upon. The others are all variations on those themes. (Though rogue is the fourth).
As to your critique on cleric: Ditch the heavy armor? Sure. :smallsmile:

Rogue I would also restructure a bit but it's mostly fine as a class. Make it less focused on thivery add a default I realize d&d was built on those core classes but I think it's outgrown them. They don't really have a place among a larger class set imo

[KorvinStarmast]

Rogue I would also restructure a bit but it's mostly fine as a class. I realize d&d was built on those core classes but I think it's outgrown them. They don't really have a place among a larger class set imo Every other class is a sub class of those four.
(AD&D 2e had what was probably the best model).
I liked bard as a sub class of rogue (although the original bard in Strategic Review was fine) but I also don't mind bard as an arcane caster now that I have gotten used to it.

[Lord Raziere]

Face palm. Literally the three classes that the game is built upon. The others are all variations on those themes. (Though rogue is the fourth).


Correction: Literally the three/four classes that every fantasy game is built upon. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief) to reduce DnD to those classes is to render DnD unable to offer anything more interesting than even the most mindless of mobile games. you need interesting variations just to stand out and DnD might be more memorable for its variations than its foundation at this point because its foundation has become everyone's foundation.

[KorvinStarmast]

Correction: Literally the three/four classes that every fantasy game is built upon Since they slavishly copied D&D. :smallwink:
(Over at[URL="https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/"] Delta's D&D hot spot (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FighterMageThief), Mr Collins did an interesting variation on OD&D where he only had Fighting Men and Magic Users. He got rid of the clerics).

[Lord Raziere]

Since they slavishly copied D&D. :smallwink:
(Over at Delta's D&D hot spot (https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/), Mr Collins did an interesting variation on OD&D where he only had Fighting Men and Magic Users. He got rid of the clerics).

Yeah. thats why DnD is no longer special to HAVE those. like Seinfeld. its nothing special now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah. thats why DnD is no longer special to HAVE those. like Seinfeld. its nothing special now.
Newsflash for you: simply having those three classes isn't what made D&D special. :smallwink: The play's the thing.

[LibraryOgre]

Hmmm....

Races:
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Half-elf

For me, gnomes and halflings were seldom character choices (though my wife plays exclusively halflings), and half-orcs weren't in by the time I started. Gnomes, I'll note, have also changed a lot in my time... largely for the better, but still not as easy to square.

For classes?
Fighter
Paladin
Cleric
Druid
Wizard
Thief
Bard

I omit the Ranger because they've wound up so many things over the editions. I actively do not like the Barbarian. The Monk I can take or leave. The Sorcerer and Warlock simply aren't core ideas for me.

[Tanarii]

I omit the Ranger because they've wound up so many things over the editions.
Interestingly, I've gone through all editions and you can see the line from the AD&D Ranger features to what 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and 5e rangers ended up as.

That doesn't change that they've shifted pretty dramatically. Primarily from a Warrior to something more like a Scout with a heavier emphasis on Dex/Archery. I consider that thematic shift to have crossed the line in the 3e->3.5e revision, but there it was happening to one degree or another in each of the editions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, gnomes and halflings were seldom character choices (though my wife plays exclusively halflings), and half-orcs weren't in by the time I started. Gnomes, I'll note, have also changed a lot in my time... largely for the better, but still not as easy to square.


Oddly, so far over 17-ish groups in the same setting, I've had 2 dwarves, 2 half-elves, and more than that halflings. Lots of dragonborn, a fair number of various elves, a number of tieflings and aasimar, one goliath, one goblin(*), two (?) half-orcs (**), one genasi (water) and any number of humans. Oh, and a kitty cat. And there was the one time my 5 year old nephew was begging to play, so we let him play an awakened rat. He bit a zombie on the toe, dealing 1 point of damage, and was satisfied and wandered off.

(*) not normally playable, but I made an exception for Oopsie, the demented druggie goblin bard. Because it was amusing and the party was cool with it.
(**) although in-universe they are really full orcs, just using the half-orc stat block for raisins.

[KorvinStarmast]

That doesn't change that they've shifted pretty dramatically. Primarily from a Warrior to something more like a Scout with a heavier emphasis on Dex/Archery. I consider that thematic shift to have crossed the line in the 3e->3.5e revision, but there it was happening to one degree or another in each of the editions. I blame Salvatore. :smallfurious:

(**) although in-universe they are really full orcs, just using the half-orc stat block for raisins.
Grape job! :smallbiggrin:

[animorte]

I blame Salvatore. :smallfurious:

I don't have the angry face about it, but darn was that en pointe.

[Lord Raziere]

I blame Salvatore. :smallfurious:


Wulfgar was originally supposed to be the protagonist, and was written as such in the first book. People liked Drizzt better, and history was made. Its not as if Salvatore forced it upon people with his limitless author powers.

Apparently DnD being popular and making money is great until it does it in a way you don't like. Funny how that works.

[Chronos]

Sure, the D&D cleric is a hodgepodge of abilities that weren't seen anywhere else before D&D. That means that the presence of clerics makes it seem more like D&D, not less. And sure, that same hodgepodge has shown up in countless other things after D&D. And that makes those countless other things seem more like D&D, too, because they were deliberately copying D&D. Blaming D&D for their imitators is like saying that Shakespeare is boring because he's full of cliches.

[diplomancer]

Sure, the D&D cleric is a hodgepodge of abilities that weren't seen anywhere else before D&D. That means that the presence of clerics makes it seem more like D&D, not less. And sure, that same hodgepodge has shown up in countless other things after D&D. And that makes those countless other things seem more like D&D, too, because they were deliberately copying D&D. Blaming D&D for their imitators is like saying that Shakespeare is boring because he's full of cliches.

D&D Cleric, specially the original version that could not use edged weapons, is very obviously inspired by legends about some historical figures that, I believe, we're not supposed to talk about in this forum, as it's connected to a real world religion.

[Asmotherion]

I agree with OP's original list, with one exception: Paladins are not in my opinion a core class, as they can be substituted for a melee focused cleric.

[rlc]

: you're specifically trying to play Aragorn or Tanis, than your own D&D game.

If all half-elves and rangers are just copying Aragorn, aren’t all wizards just copying Gandalf?

[Ulsan Krow]

All of these apply to fighter.

Fighter can't do things outside of combat, and fighter is good at low levels

EDIT: and fighter can't cast a decent amount of spells either at that





On topic, the classes necessary to feel like DnD:

Magic User (everything)
Fighting Person (combat)
Thief (non magical things outside of combat)
Cleric (healing and turning the undead)

[Tanarii]

I agree with OP's original list, with one exception: Paladins are not in my opinion a core class, as they can be substituted for a melee focused cleric.
As long as the melee focused cleric can do sufficient melee damage output, I agree it'd be a possible approach to classes. And WotC editions lean towards or outright enable being able to build clerics that way.

It'd also be nice if the 'Paladin' build had a subclass that allowed it use Cha for casting instead of Wis, but IMO that's not required for a Paladin. It is a nice way to emulate the importance of Cha to Paladins in the absence of either ability score minimums or henchmen/retainers tho.

[LibraryOgre]

Interestingly, I've gone through all editions and you can see the line from the AD&D Ranger features to what 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and 5e rangers ended up as.

That doesn't change that they've shifted pretty dramatically. Primarily from a Warrior to something more like a Scout with a heavier emphasis on Dex/Archery. I consider that thematic shift to have crossed the line in the 3e->3.5e revision, but there it was happening to one degree or another in each of the editions.

Part of it for me is the radical shift from 1e to 2e, but 3e and 3.5e both became more magical (which I've suggested as a way to make the 2e ranger suck less... same spell list, but on the bard casting table), the 4e went pure martial, and the 5e seems to be throwing several different ideas in as different subclasses (which it's supposed to do). A lot of this, though, can be replaced with some decent skill systems and a fighter subclass.


Oddly, so far over 17-ish groups in the same setting, I've had 2 dwarves, 2 half-elves, and more than that halflings. Lots of dragonborn, a fair number of various elves, a number of tieflings and aasimar, one goliath, one goblin(*), two (?) half-orcs (**), one genasi (water) and any number of humans. Oh, and a kitty cat. And there was the one time my 5 year old nephew was begging to play, so we let him play an awakened rat. He bit a zombie on the toe, dealing 1 point of damage, and was satisfied and wandered off.


I'm old. While I don't dislike dragonborn (well, maybe mechanically), they're not part of the core D&D experience for me.


I agree with OP's original list, with one exception: Paladins are not in my opinion a core class, as they can be substituted for a melee focused cleric.

While I've got them on my list, I do generally agree, mechanically. What makes the paladin iconic for me is their relationship with the LG alignment. It can get extremely problematic depending on the GM, but it's a core part of the D&D experience (and I've never played a Paladin under the LG restriction, save on computer games; 4e and 5e, but never anything earlier).

[LibraryOgre]

D&D Cleric, specially the original version that could not use edged weapons, is very obviously inspired by legends about some historical figures that, I believe, we're not supposed to talk about in this forum, as it's connected to a real world religion.

The Mod Ogre: Indeed; there are the explicit parallels in some earlier books, but let's leave those out of the discussion. As a note, no one is in trouble... this is just a "Hey, diplomancer is right and y'all should avoid the subject due to the rules."

[Tanarii]

Part of it for me is the radical shift from 1e to 2e, but 3e and 3.5e both became more magical (which I've suggested as a way to make the 2e ranger suck less... same spell list, but on the bard casting table), the 4e went pure martial, and the 5e seems to be throwing several different ideas in as different subclasses (which it's supposed to do). A lot of this, though, can be replaced with some decent skill systems and a fighter subclass.
Agreed, they also became much more magical as time passed, starting in 2e. I can see how that would impact your view of them changing dramatically, just as for me it was the slide into 'Archer/TWF Scout' role for me. And yeah, I explicitly excluded 4e, but it was a dramatic change for almost all classes.

But the core features of the Ranger have all been carried through, excepting for 4e:
- favored enemies (of civilization)
- thief sneaking skills
- wilderness skills (esp. Tracking)
- ambush/surprise expertise
- spellcasting (esp Druidic)
- rugged frontiersman weapons use (esp hatchets/daggers & bows)

Spellcasting got bumped forward dramatically, and the hatchet/dagger thing became TWF focus.

Edit: I also found my old post on Ranger identity (e.g. class description) for each edition:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24994860&postcount=61

[Thane of Fife]

From a mechanical perspective, that is, for the game to feel like D&D, I think you need Fighters and Wizards. And frankly, if you make scrolls really common and let fighters use them, I think you could make do with just Fighters. There's an OSR game like that (Searchers of the Unknown, I think), and I would say that still seems like D&D to me. I don't think there are any particular creature types that are needed.

From a more implied setting perspective, I would say that the classes needed are Fighter, Wizard, some kind of holy warrior (possibly Cleric or Paladin), and some sort of jack-of-all-trades (I'm thinking specifically 2e Bard, but maybe Ranger or some kind of Fighter/Wizard combo). And then Humans, Elves, and at least one of Dwarves/Halflings/Gnomes.

[Witty Username]

Fighter can't do things outside of combat, and fighter is good at low levels

EDIT: and fighter can't cast a decent amount of spells either at that

Eldritch Knight exists. Fighter can definitely do things outside of combat. They have no particular advantages outside of combat, but that doesn't mean useless, Intimidate and Althetics come up.

And frankly I ignored the bad at low levels comment, that is a monk exclusive (and maybe Barbarian).

[Rukelnikov]

And frankly I ignored the bad at low levels comment, that is a monk exclusive (and maybe Barbarian).

How is barbarian bad at low levels? (I'm not convinced monk is bad either but thats more debatable)

[Eldariel]

How is barbarian bad at low levels? (I'm not convinced monk is bad either but thats more debatable)

How is it debatable? Monk is a basically frontline-only class with low HD and no additional defensive abilities (stuck at 16 AC). And when they unlock their Ki on level 2, they have a small enough amount that they can't really do much.

Barbarian OTOH I agree with: while it's still a martial (which is pretty harsh on level 1), it's definitely the top of the line among martials for the first 5-7 levels, though only having two uses of Rage does kinda suck if days involve a lot of skirmishes.

[KorvinStarmast]

From a mechanical perspective, that is, for the game to feel like D&D, I think you need Fighters and Wizards. Indeed, Swords and Sorcery. :smallbiggrin:

How is barbarian bad at low levels? (I'm not convinced monk is bad either but thats more debatable) They are not bad at low levels.

Monk is a basically frontline-only class with low HD and no additional defensive abilities (stuck at 16 AC). And when they unlock their Ki on level 2, they have a small enough amount that they can't really do much. Have you actually played a monk at low levels? The first one I played from level 1 to 4 (before the campaign was abruptly curtailed do to the usual RL scheduling issues) was quite effective. She was a wood elf, and so was proficient with long bows (which helped when ranged attacks were needed, against monsters like a harpy :smallyuk: ). The attack plus bonus attack with a quarter staff and unarmed strike was nice. Granted, she was not a solo front liner, but she was also a scout since we had no rogue.

[Talamare]

We could restore it to 1st Editions supposed Glory of only 4 races and classes
We could cut away the classes that have spawned more recently like Monk or Warlock
or the races that have become more popular recently like Dragonborn and Tiefling...

but I would argue that the Core Classes and Races to feel like D&D at this point is ALL of them.

D&D has grown and evolved, cutting away for the purity of the original game isn't the right move.

[Rukelnikov]

How is it debatable? Monk is a basically frontline-only class with low HD and no additional defensive abilities (stuck at 16 AC). And when they unlock their Ki on level 2, they have a small enough amount that they can't really do much.

Maybe using point buy, we use rolls, and when someone makes a monk its generally cause they got decent stats, so in my experience monks tend to have 17 or 18 AC at lvl 1, and a built in in bonus action attack, their damage output thru tier 1 is decent to good without having to depend on race or feats to have that, which means they are extremely versatile, cause you can be of any race, pick whatever feat, and have good AC and offense from the get go, and it will keep being ok all thru T2.

[Eldariel]

Have you actually played a monk at low levels? The first one I played from level 1 to 4 (before the campaign was abruptly curtailed do to the usual RL scheduling issues) was quite effective. She was a wood elf, and so was proficient with long bows (which helped when ranged attacks were needed, against monsters like a harpy :smallyuk: ). The attack plus bonus attack with a quarter staff and unarmed strike was nice. Granted, she was not a solo front liner, but she was also a scout since we had no rogue.

Unfortunately I have. I've also played with a lot of low level Monks and DMed for a few, and it pretty much always feel like a second rate Fighter or Barbarian or even Rogue (with no skills). 14 Con max and 8 HD + zero defensive abilities on level 1 with melee being the only place where you can deal your bonus action damage makes you fragile as glass on level 1 (the damage is the same as TWF Fighter or whatever but with way lower HP and no Second Wind; though I don't like playing frontline with only 16 AC on level 1, period) and the level 2 abilities barely help. On the same board with a Paladin, a Druid, a Fighter, a Cleric, a Barbarian, a Wizard, a Warlock, and a Bard the Monk has consistently stood out as the easiest-to-kill level 1 character. Like yeah, it has more HP than Wizard or Sorcerer but it doesn't have Shield or Silvery Barbs and Patient Defense has to be used ahead of the time so much of the time it might turn out to be completely irrelevant. Rogue and Bard are the other two highly squishy level 1s, but they do have Moderately Armored from a feat at least as a hail mary. Monk basically just doesn't have much of a choice.

[Waazraath]

Maybe using point buy, we use rolls, and when someone makes a monk its generally cause they got decent stats, so in my experience monks tend to have 17 or 18 AC at lvl 1, and a built in in bonus action attack, their damage output thru tier 1 is decent to good without having to depend on race or feats to have that, which means they are extremely versatile, cause you can be of any race, pick whatever feat, and have good AC and offense from the get go, and it will keep being ok all thru T2.

Exactly my experience. Best results require some basic skill with building characters (play a monk when you roll high stats and avoid when rolled low) and some tactical skill (no don't run to the biggest melee threat to duke it out but use mobility to attack squishy backline characters, and don't forget to spent ki on patient defense when in a tight spot) though.

[Eldariel]

Exactly my experience. Best results require some basic skill with building characters (play a monk when you roll high stats and avoid when rolled low) and some tactical skill (no don't run to the biggest melee threat to duke it out but use mobility to attack squishy backline characters, and don't forget to spent ki on patient defense when in a tight spot) though.

You mean "best results require playing with rolled stats"? 'Cause it doesn't matter how good you are at stat allocation if you play point buy or array. It's true that with high stats, Monk becomes passable if not good even on low levels. Still probably the weakest class but less obviously so.

[Waazraath]

You mean "best results require playing with rolled stats"?

Of course. As all (more) MAD classes get better compared to (more) SAD ones. And no, my experience is not that they can become 'passable' but that they can be really good and interesting to play - but we play under very different assumptions appearently - when I see claims like being a martial "is pretty harsh on level 1" (#128) this simply does not make any sense to me so *shrug*

[KorvinStarmast]

the Monk has consistently stood out as the easiest-to-kill level 1 character. How many sessions do your parties stay at level 1?

[PhoenixPhyre]

How many sessions do your parties stay at level 1?

Yeah. Because the standard is either 1 or 2. Less if you blow past the normal budget like a lot of people do.

[animorte]

How many sessions do your parties stay at level 1?

Most people seem to have an issue with power levels across the board at level 1. Accordingly most people seem to start the game at level 3. That’s my guess.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bards, Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks ... all easier to kill than a level 1 Monk. Same or less hit points, usually lower AC.

Agreed. And generally not enough tools on anyone's part to kite.

[Witty Username]

How is barbarian bad at low levels? (I'm not convinced monk is bad either but thats more debatable)

This may be a bit more to unpack in this thread about D&D essentials, but to try the short version of my take (from a conversation I had about worst class monk vs Ranger and barbarian was elected as a third option). Barbarian is generally strong while raging and weak when not, mostly because of the defensive bonuses while raging as the offensive bonuses while raging amount to a about a fighting style in terms of effectiveness. As tier 2 levels this is pretty fine, but at low levels where the barbarian only has a couple rages per long rest, the barbarian is much more likely to have to fight without rage up. Paired with the usual lack of out of combat features of most martials and the melee leaning of barbarian makes for a weak in Tier 1 class.

[Angelalex242]

I do believe Paladin is essential, mostly because, if base D&D is based on Lord of the Rings, the 3 hearts 3 Lions/Morte d'Arthur/Song of Roland/etc. should also be part of base D&D.

[narrator667]

Core Races:
Big Man
Man
Small Man

Core Classes:
Man
Magic Man


Everything else is just fluff. You don't need to be a Rogue to dodge, You don't need to be a Bard to talk things through. The idea of Skill monkeys is too gamey and I don't like the idea that everyone Intelligent uses Magic. Even a Cleric is just a reskin of a Magic Man. Separating Wizards harnessing magic and clerics worshiping the gods is mostly modern roleplay. Merlin is more Irish Druid than a Hogwarts Professor. Gandalf effectively wields a sword on the battlefield over casting spells and his magic stems from his primordial race over study.

I like Low Fantasy, I genuinely believe this. But I know I can't bring these ideas to your average DnD table, I used to sneer at every lvl 1 Assassin and Tiefling who knew who their daddy was. Now I know it just ruins the fun. what I wanted was a completely different system entirely. I don't like High Fantasy in theory, but I can roleplay off character concepts I used to swat off as basic or edgy and I can play up the parts I do like. I like Big Dumb brutes and I like the evil races. If I were to answer your question genuinely;

Races:
Humans
Elves
Dwarves
Orcs
Goblins
Goliath/ Mini-Giant Equivalent
Tieflings
*Halflings
*Gnomes


Half-Orcs are a hold out from the time where Orcs were considered too Evil to be playable races. They still can be when useful, but I don't think it's up to the player's handbook to decide that. We need a Goliath Equivalent, a big guy with less bad rep than an Orc or Ogre but not as inherently gentle as a 5e Firbolg. I'd honestly take inspiration from 2ed, more honorable Viking Firbolg or even go as far as Gorons from Legend of Zelda for inspiration.
I think Gnomes can exist as some sort of Dwarven or Halfling cultural subset. It's all about how physically different the three shortfolk are in your mind. Your gnomes maybe too fey or too warcraft bobblehead to be Dwarves or Halflings. But you could easily see a Dwarf filling the role of a Mechanic, Jokester, or Librarian unless a Gnome takes the spot right? If you want your Gnomes to be more Fey. it maybe worth it if they replace Halflings instead, either living in the same idealistic Hobbit Holes, but with a twinge more mushroom magic and living the good life being owed to good luck from their Fey cousins.

After that the only must have races for the next book would be:
Half-Elves
Half-Orcs
Aasimar
Aakocra
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Warforged


Classes:
Fighter
Barbarian
Paladin
*Non-Paladin Gish
Cleric
Wizard
Druid
Artificer

A Bard or Cleric statblock can be roleplayed as a Straight Wizard with no musical talent or devotion, and a Paladin can be retooled as an Eldritch Knight. For next edition we have to keep in mind things like a Charisma Casting Cleric or an Int Based Paladin, and encourage it to better represent your character. I truly view the classes more as alternate casting methods than anything. Rangers, Rogues, and Pulgists should be Fighter or Barbarian subclasses, Bards and Monks Paladin or Gish subclasses, and Warlocks and Sorcerers are possible backstories for any of the Full Casters. No one at the table will argue your Cleric should be a Divine Sorcerer cause they're born outside the church hierarchy but we all will online. Warlocks are just Clerics who could have bargained or stole their powers, I'd allow a Caster with no real magic talent, he just found a cool Staff and needs to keep it on him Green Lantern style until enough rubs off on him.
The game needs to start with both a single powerful pet subclass, a minion master Full Caster subclass, and Barbarian should be made with a major Lycanthrope subclass in mind.

[Eldariel]

Bards, Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks ... all easier to kill than a level 1 Monk. Same or less hit points, usually lower AC.

Rogue, Bards maybe (but Silvery Barbs lets Bard reroll successful attack rolls on them which is stronger than +1 AC). Wizards have Silvery Barbs and Shield + Arcane Recovery meaning they have a slot for Mage Armor too, so no. Sorcerer is slot-strapped but does get subclass abilities on level 1, some of which can help. Sure, the slot cost is huge on level 1 but if it saves your bacon, it's worth it.


How many sessions do your parties stay at level 1?

Depends on the campaign. 1-2 is typical, sometimes 3-4.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rogue, Bards maybe (but Silvery Barbs lets Bard reroll successful attack rolls on them which is stronger than +1 AC). Wizards have Silvery Barbs and Shield + Arcane Recovery meaning they have a slot for Mage Armor too, so no. Sorcerer is slot-strapped but does get subclass abilities on level 1, some of which can help. Sure, the slot cost is huge on level 1 but if it saves your bacon, it's worth it.



Depends on the campaign. 1-2 is typical, sometimes 3-4.

Shield+arcane recovery+mage armor gets you two turns and leave you completely out of gas for the day. Meaning you're doing roughly half or less of the monk's damage, and have zero utility (since that takes spells since your ability checks aren't great).

A single normal hit will likely take either of you out if you're not at full hp. A single crit will go through shield and likely either take either of you to 0 from full or outright kill you. And ac 15 is about what the monk has, if not lower (not particularly hard to start with 16s in both Dex and wis, even with the standard array, given Tasha's).

[Hael]

I would say there is an inverse relationship between mechanically weak defensively at lvl 1, and whether that class does or does not die in actual play.

So for instance, I have never seen a well played rogue die at lvl 1… Simply b/c they will stay hidden if there is a slight chance things could go south for them.

Classes that do die, are the barbarian/monk/ranger/fighter as they have the illusion of safety behind slightly higher AC and slightly higher HD. Since they are typically in the frontlines, you will see them roll many more dice, and yes a string of criticals can happen.

The only caster exceptions are the bard (before they got silvery barbs), and the sorcerer sometimes (usually at the end of a gaming day when their slots are down, something which happened to me in actual play).

[Eldariel]

Shield+arcane recovery+mage armor gets you two turns and leave you completely out of gas for the day. Meaning you're doing roughly half or less of the monk's damage, and have zero utility (since that takes spells since your ability checks aren't great).

A single normal hit will likely take either of you out if you're not at full hp. A single crit will go through shield and likely either take either of you to 0 from full or outright kill you. And ac 15 is about what the monk has, if not lower (not particularly hard to start with 16s in both Dex and wis, even with the standard array, given Tasha's).

Crit gets blocked by Silvery Barbs if need be. AC is 16 (it's equally easy to have 16 Dex and Int). And you're not a frontliner, you shouldn't be attacked as frequently: blocking two would-be hits is more than enough to carry you through a day. You obviously don't want to cast defensive spells: you just want to disable enemies, use line of sight/line of effect, range, proneness, etc. to avoid attacks and Sleep things. But you've got 4 spells prepared so might as well (unless you have a reason to get like Thunderwave or are in a party where you can Expeditious Retreat kite). Also familiar gives you advantage on attacks so you have a pretty good at-will tool, and you do have access to Unseen Servant ritualizing too for item/door/etc. use.

Casters actually have ways to improve their survivability with proper play (which was implied for Monk but there are way more options for ranged kity multi-option casters to do that).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Crit gets blocked by Silvery Barbs if need be. AC is 16 (it's equally easy to have 16 Dex and Int). And you're not a frontliner, you shouldn't be attacked as frequently: blocking two would-be hits is more than enough to carry you through a day. You obviously don't want to cast defensive spells: you just want to disable enemies, use line of sight/line of effect, range, proneness, etc. to avoid attacks and Sleep things. But you've got 4 spells prepared so might as well (unless you have a reason to get like Thunderwave or are in a party where you can Expeditious Retreat kite). Also familiar gives you advantage on attacks so you have a pretty good at-will tool, and you do have access to Unseen Servant ritualizing too for item/door/etc. use.

Casters actually have ways to improve their survivability with proper play (which was implied for Monk but there are way more options for ranged kity multi-option casters to do that).

How are you doing all that when you've burned your only 2 slots on defense (shield and silvery barbs, which still doesn't mean you didn't get hit)?

At level 1, getting to almost as durable as a monk costs your all your slots, and only works part of the time. Leaving you with crap for damage and no utility.

[Eldariel]

How are you doing all that when you've burned your only 2 slots on defense (shield and silvery barbs, which still doesn't mean you didn't get hit)?

At level 1, getting to almost as durable as a monk costs your all your slots, and only works part of the time. Leaving you with crap for damage and no utility.

"Almost as durable"? Monk literally has 2 HP more than a Wizard and is melee with at most equal AC. If you avoid a single hit due to being ranged or using a single resource, you'll already have way surpassed the Monk, with two you're closer to Barbarian or Fighter.

[Tanarii]

Please take any further debate about monk level 1 to its own thread. I'm sure you'll get pages of debate out of it. :smallamused:

[Witty Username]

How do people feel about non-core elements with D&D?
I have some thoughts, to give context to this question. To me D&D has always had a combination of stock fantasy and weird fringes.
Forgotten Realms and next to it Dark Sun. And while I enjoy the stock fantasy Forgotten Realms, the weird fringes like Dark Sun have always felt more alluring. The Iron currency of Dragonlance, the magictech of Eberron, thr drug induced coma that is Spelljammer. And I realize that this fringe, not the specific settings nessasarily but this sense of in the distance there is something absurd, weird and glorious at the edges may be something I need in my D&D.
A sense of reliable core vs optional specific itch non-core I guees.

But what everyone else? Do people feel a need for the off the path (or off the rails) options and settings? Is this something intrinsic to D&D at this point?

[skaddix]

Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Small Race I think is the Core.
I don't really care if you pick halfling or gnome honestly. End result is probably some fusion.
I would also include Half Orcs, Half Elves, and Tieflings. Maybe Aasimar.
Though I think you are good with just Orcs being playable these days.
Though I think a lot of this depends on how you think races should be designed.

Races: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes (or Halflings) > Half Elves, Orcs, Tieflings > Aasimar

Classes are more interesting for me. I think you look at the core and go from there so Fighter (Warrior), Rogue (Thief), Cleric and Wizard (Mage or Sorcerer).
I am getting rid of spell books but I think the default Arcane caster should still use Int.
I am keeping Bards they are a joke but they are iconic and with no Sorc or at least not using CHA. They can slot in as your default CHA caster.
Druids are also in because they are distinct. Ditto with Paladins.

Barbarians and Rangers I think can mostly be folded into either Fighters or Druids. Barbarians at least have something about them that is distinct in Rage but Rangers feel directionless. Maybe Prestige Classes lol.
Monks I like them but I don't think you need them.
Warlocks are an interesting case to me....I think I make them more like Paladins or Pathfinders Magus in that they are mix between magic and fighting so a Hybrid though more magically inclined.

Classes: Fighter (Warrior), Thief (Rogue), Wizard (Sorcerer, Mage), Druid, Paladin > Bard, Warlock > Monk

So my answers are kinda in a three tiers structure.

[Keravath]

That is a very good point. The primary distinguishers between Wizards and Sorcerers are:
- spontaneous casting (eliminated in 5e)
- spellbook vs known
- Int vs Cha

And probably in most 5e players minds, Int vs Cha is the biggest deal, not spellbook vs known.
My list would probably be best updated to "spellbook-less arcane caster" at this point :smallamused:
(Edit: changed it to Wizard/Sorcerer)

Orcs shouldn't be in a PHB. Maybe in a Team Evil splatbook, along with Hobgoblins, Goblins, Kobolds, Gnolls, Bugbears, Drow, etc.

It's interesting that you want a spell-book less arcane caster as a basic class to make the game D&D while it seems to me that the fundamental wizard/mage/illusionist in D&D has always used a spell book. Do you not consider a spell caster using a spell book to be a fundamental element of what makes the game D&D?

Races:
Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling - basically LOTR - [ extended: half-elf, gnome, half-orc ]
Classes:
Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard - [extended: Druid, paladin, ranger, monk ]

P.S. There are lots of other good races and classes that are fun to play - Warlock is a particular favorite for me - but considering when I started playing (which probably strongly influences what one would consider D&D) - classes like Artificer, Sorcerer, Warlock are not central to the game being D&D for me.

P.P.S. More generally, the elements that make the game D&D to me are humans + fantasy races, delineated classes defining adventuring careers (I'm not claiming this as the best system simply the one that makes the game D&D), Vancian magic system, d20 to hit and for saving throws, using d4->d20 for something :), distinct features/mechanics associated with each race and class so that they provide variety and don't just feel like the same or similar mechanics with different names applied depending on the race/class.

[KorvinStarmast]

Crit gets blocked by Silvery Barbs That wasn't in the game for over six years, are you retconning SB into the whole game?
Some of us, like me, don't let that bloat into our games. (The whole stinking Strixhaven nonsense). I am barely OK with mind sliver from Tasha's, but my players like it and I make them keep track of the 1d4 reduction: in other words, if they don't roll the d4 when the enemy has to make a save, tough beans, the reduction didn't happen. I admit that I like the concept behind a mini debuff, but for us in play it's one more fiddly bit. So I have delegated that to the players.

[Eldariel]

Monk is a skirmisher.

How exactly does frontline skirmisher work on level 1? You provoke each turn to get behind your frontline or what? I guess if you pick up Mobile, but then you're spending your level 1 feat on Mobile instead of Alert/Lucky/PAM/XBE/SS/whatever.

[KorvinStarmast]

How exactly does frontline skirmisher Why are you playing a monk like a tank at level 1? The reason people take Mobile is that it plays into skirmisher.

Caster-centricism seems to create some blind spots.

"Almost as durable"? Monk literally has 2 HP more than a Wizard and is melee with at most equal AC. Monk is a skirmisher. Monk can also shoot light cross bow, ranged, since it's a simple weapon.
Weapons: Simple weapons, shortswords Let's see, +5 to hit and 1d8+3 damage (average is 7.5, well better than firebolt)

If you avoid a single hit due to being ranged or using a single resource, you'll already have way surpassed the Monk, with two you're closer to Barbarian or Fighter. Because you are hiding behind the Fighter and the Barbarian.

[Eldariel]

Why are you playing a monk like a tank at level 1? The reason people take Mobile is that it plays into skirmisher.

Caster-centricism seems to create some blind spots.

I'm saying "skirmisher" is a role that simply doesn't work on level 1 - to skirmish, you need to be able to get in, deal damage, and get out in the same turn while your allies tank the enemy. Nobody literally can skirmish without some tools to at least disengage as a bonus action or otherwise get out of melee. Unless you're going straight-up ranged but in that wastes the only thing Monk-levels have going on for them: bonus action unarmed strike.

[Dork_Forge]

Caster-centricism seems to create some blind spots.

Understatement, thy name is Korvin

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm saying "skirmisher" is a role that simply doesn't work on level 1 - to skirmish, you need to be able to get in, deal damage, and get out in the same turn while your allies tank the enemy. Nobody literally can skirmish without some tools to at least disengage as a bonus action or otherwise get out of melee. Unless you're going straight-up ranged but in that wastes the only think Monk-levels have going on for them: bonus action unarmed strike. We are at an impasse. I think it would be best to leave it at that. My monk experience and yours obviously differs.

[Eldariel]

We are at an impasse. I think it would be best to leave it at that. My monk experience and yours obviously differs.

Can you at least explain to me how a skirmisher Monk would actually work at level 1? Does he wait for others to engage first and try to engage on the second string? Or does he actually provoke the OA? Or is this something specific to just "Mobile"? I'm not kidding: I just don't see how the whole thing works at all. Normally a skirmisher is someone who does damage up close without actually opening themselves up to counterattacks...but on level 1, I don't see any class having the tools to do that.

Like say your level 1 party of Fighter/Monk/Cleric/Wizard engages three Orcs in a fairly broad cavern with enough room for three characters to move adjacent to one another - they're all in range to move to melee. Fighter and Cleric head to melee to engage, while Wizard stays in the back row and Sleeps the third Orc in the back. The two remaining Orcs engage Fighter and Cleric in melee. What does the Monk do on their first turn? What about if he goes before the Fighter and the Cleric?

[Grim Portent]

Classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue.

Races: Human, all others are extraneous to the core experience.

Personally I'd say the classes and races are largely irrelevant to what makes D&D feel the way it does. The schlocky enemies are more important. Mind Flayers, Beholders, Carrion Crawlers, Dire Weasels, Kobolds and all that stuff. You could boil a character down to nothing but classless stats and as long as they have to fight a motley crew of weird creatures it would feel like D&D.

Arguably dungeons as well. Extra points if the dungeon makes no damn sense, like having a guilotine trap in a main corridor that was supposed to be used for regular access to the place.

[KorvinStarmast]

Like say your level 1 party of Fighter/Monk/Cleric/Wizard engages three Orcs in a fairly broad cavern I don't assume tactical incompetence. Really, let it go.

Classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue.
Races: Human, all others are extraneous to the core experience. If you play an all human party, a lot of the rules make a lot more sense. (lighting, disad on perception in dim light, and so on).

Personally I'd say the classes and races are largely irrelevant to what makes D&D feel the way it does. The schlocky enemies are more important. Mind Flayers, Beholders, Carrion Crawlers, Dire Weasels, Kobolds and all that stuff. You could boil a character down to nothing but classless stats and as long as they have to fight a motley crew of weird creatures it would feel like D&D. It would.

Arguably dungeons as well. Extra points if the dungeon makes no damn sense, like having a guillotine trap in a main corridor that was supposed to be used for regular access to the place. Yeah, but they remodeled. :smallbiggrin: The interior decorator was a slaad ...

[Grim Portent]

Yeah, but they remodeled. :smallbiggrin: The interior decorator was a slaad ...

Sometimes I genuinely laugh when death traps show up in games and tv/movies. They immediately take me out of the scenario and make me start wondering what kind of terrible architect was involved in the design decisions.

Who fills a pit with snakes? Do they feed the snakes? When was it set, how are there still snakes in there? What kind of ******* was this mean to snakes as to lock them in a crowded pit forever?

[Tanarii]

It's interesting that you want a spell-book less arcane caster as a basic class to make the game D&D while it seems to me that the fundamental wizard/mage/illusionist in D&D has always used a spell book. Do you not consider a spell caster using a spell book to be a fundamental element of what makes the game D&D?
Only if obtaining spells for the spellbook requires delving into ancient tombs to acquire long lost scrolls to transcribe them from. If Wizards are just going to get free spells on level up, I don't feel like the fundamental elemental of arcane casting revolves around it any more, so it's time to discard it as unnecessary paperwork.

But I totally would get why others might object to that view. :smallamused:


P.P.S. More generally, the elements that make the game D&D to me are humans + fantasy races, delineated classes defining adventuring careers (I'm not claiming this as the best system simply the one that makes the game D&D), Vancian magic system, d20 to hit and for saving throws, using d4->d20 for something :), distinct features/mechanics associated with each race and class so that they provide variety and don't just feel like the same or similar mechanics with different names applied depending on the race/class.That is a pretty solid list.

I was perfectly happy to see vancian casting be replaced by the last edition. But it was a huge enough difference in feeling in play at the table that it makes sense to me when people say that change made it not feel like D&D to them.

[Lucas Yew]

Humans, Fighters (with beefed up numbers), and Wizards.

On species, as it's clear that playing non-humans with different biological capabilities disturbs a fair amount of people, they should be relegated to NPCs to salvage unique flavour, not ending up as humans in rubber suits. :smallmad:

The "fighter" should have best HD, weapons, armor, saves, and lots of skills but no spell slots. The "wizard" should be all opposite, awful in everything numeric but with full slot progression and prepared spells.

And both classes are to be either conceptual and/or NPC restricted; all PC classes should be those who traded out stuff from those prototypes for unique features (rage damage but bad wisdom save for barbarians, no components but fixed spells known for sorcerers, and such).

[Eldariel]

I don't assume tactical incompetence. Really, let it go.

{Scrubbed}

[diplomancer]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Bugbear can easily skirmish.

[Eldariel]

Bugbear can easily skirmish.

{Scrubbed}

[Witty Username]

Monk is a great example of a character I find unnecessary for D&D to feel right, but D&D is definitely improved by its presence. It may be the company I keep but monks along with paladins seem to evoke the strongest emotions in people and have been doing that since D&D began as far as I can tell.

[Talamare]

I see Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer having similar issues.

They don't have a clear role to play in the game. Too many other classes tend to basically overlap their combat theme.

Monk is clearly seen as a "Skirmisher", a Fast Moving High Damage specialist
Guess who is also a Fast Moving High Damage Specialist... Barbarian... Rogue... Ranger... Fighters... Melee Wizards/Warlocks/Sorcerers...

and I don't really need to 'Move Fast' if I can just do similarly high DPS from Range

Maybe they are more of a "Resource Fighter"... Just like Ranger... Fighter... Melee Wizards/Warlocks/Sorcerers...


So, the problem with Monk isn't just that their numbers are fairly low compared to other Melee specialists...
but also that they didn't do a good enough job at carving out that niche AND that too many other generalists can also do exactly what their niche is too easily.

[animorte]

-snip-

I agree there is A LOT of overlap in what can be accomplished during all pillars of play. This is why I’ve always felt like fewer overall classes would have been sufficient and more balanced.

[Talamare]

I agree there is A LOT of overlap in what can be accomplished during all pillars of play. This is why I’ve always felt like fewer overall classes would have been sufficient and more balanced.

Let's see

Let's make a 3 Class Game

Fighter, Scout, Mage

Each have a basic Subclass

Fighter can Subclass into Barbarian or Paladin
Scout can Subclass into Rogue or Monk
Mage can Subclass into Wizard or Sorcerer

Each can also have a Multiclass
Fighter Scout = Ranger
Fighter Mage = Artificer
Scout Mage = Druid

This seems mostly fine... Not much room for Bard or Warlock


Maybe a 4 Class Game?
Fighter, Scout, Arcane, Divine

Fighter can Subclass into Barbarian or ??? (Maybe Warlord from 4e?)
Scout can Subclass into Rogue or Monk
Arcane can Subclass into Wizard or Sorcerer

Fighter Scout = Ranger
Fighter Arcane = Artificer
Fighter Divine = Paladin

Scout Arcane = Bard
Scout Divine = Druid

Arcane Divine = Warlock

-------
Regardless, Prestige options for most of the current 'subclasses'

[animorte]

-snippidy do da-

That works for me. And subclasses overall could function closer to what the Totem Barbarian looks like. Choose this option upon starting the subclass and on each level you gain a new feature, you get the next one in that line.

Each one could have shared features, say every Sorcerer subclass would gain the meta-magic, but that’s the only thing they would share. Each Wizard would acquire ritual casting. Each Rogue would have sneak attack. Each Druid would have wild shape. So on and so forth.

Each subclass (classes more as we know them now) would still maintain their primary class features and the following levels would determine something closer to the subclasses we are currently familiar with.

[Tanarii]

Fighter Scout = Ranger
Fighter Arcane = Artificer
Fighter Divine = Paladin

Scout Arcane = Bard
Scout Divine = Druid

Arcane Divine = Warlock
Does scout include primal spells? Because thats an integral part of Ranger since AD&D, and at somewhat reasonable levels since 2e, and at low levels in 3e/4e. The only spell-less Ranger is 4e.

I feel that Rangers are an important part of what makes D&D, but it does require "wilderness oriented survivalist / scout / warrior, with primal magic" to be useful in the game :smallamused:

If it's just an archer / scout class, it definitely could be either a fighter/rogue type, or just a rogue. Depends if archer class = rogue.

[Ulsan Krow]

just adventurer human is enough.

level = pick between combat stuff, skills, or spells

[Talamare]

Does scout include primal spells? Because thats an integral part of Ranger since AD&D, and at somewhat reasonable levels since 2e, and at low levels in 3e/4e. The only spell-less Ranger is 4e.

I feel that Rangers are an important part of what makes D&D, but it does require "wilderness oriented survivalist / scout / warrior, with primal magic" to be useful in the game :smallamused:

If it's just an archer / scout class, it definitely could be either a fighter/rogue type, or just a rogue. Depends if archer class = rogue.

Probably not
But this isn't really a realistic expectation of any changes, it wouldn't really work at all with the DnD expectations. Exactly as you said it.
As far as that design philosophy is concerned...

Fighter would be Tanks
Scouts would be DPS

Ranger would be more resilient than Rogue or Monk, but not as tanky as the Barbarian or Paladin/Warlord, but be able of doing more damage than those guys; but of course not as much as the pure Scouts

Barbarian = Resist Tank
Warlord = Basically Fighter, Generic Heavy Armor Tank
Ranger = Heavy DPS
Rogue = Stealth DPS
Monk = Mobility DPS

I honestly wonder if you even need a Primal spell list, at least in 5e its the least developed concept and spell list
On average it's unique spells are bad; often times has spells that are extremely similar to an Arcane version, but just worse in someway...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I honestly wonder if you even need a Primal spell list, at least in 5e its the least developed concept and spell list
On average it's unique spells are bad; often times has spells that are extremely similar to an Arcane version, but just worse in someway...

I like the Primal "power source" concept a lot. It's something I've even applied to classes that don't cast spells--barbarians are conceptually primally-powered, drawing in power from the world around them.

The comparison to Arcane is bad...because the Arcane list is "all the good spells everyone else gets, plus some only we get." And has no internal or thematic coherence whatsoever. Of the two of them, the Arcane list needs surgery with a chainsaw. Not the Primal list.

[Talamare]

I like the Primal "power source" concept a lot. It's something I've even applied to classes that don't cast spells--barbarians are conceptually primally-powered, drawing in power from the world around them.

The comparison to Arcane is bad...because the Arcane list is "all the good spells everyone else gets, plus some only we get." And has no internal or thematic coherence whatsoever. Of the two of them, the Arcane list needs surgery with a chainsaw. Not the Primal list.

I definitely should have been more clear

I absolutely agree that I also love the Primal concept, but I hate it in 5e.

I loved playing Warden in 4e, the Shaman was such a cool and unique concept, and Thane Barbarian was unique and fun experience.

I've mainlined Druid, the spell list is just bad. Just so so bad.
It got a little fixed over the releases, as they added spells from Divine and Arcane into it; but that also had the effect of murking up the concept of what it is meant to be.
I am fully for nuking both Divine and Arcane to give Primal its truly proper concept

On the subject of Ranger and Spells, turns out Pathfinder2e Rangers don't have innate Spellcasting either, that was a very mild surprise...

[diplomancer]

The comparison to Arcane is bad...because the Arcane list is "all the good spells everyone else gets, plus some only we get." And has no internal or thematic coherence whatsoever. Of the two of them, the Arcane list needs surgery with a chainsaw. Not the Primal list.

Wait, what? Yes Arcane list is too big and too good, but "all the good spells everyone else gets"? When I think of pretty much any iconic Cleric spell (or Paladin spell, for that matter), Arcane casters don't usually get it. The Bard gets a few, mostly healing, but he is sort of a hybrid anyhow, and his spells are not representative of the Arcane spell list.

[Tanarii]

just adventurer human is enough.

level = pick between combat stuff, skills, or spells
It's not a bad way to set things up for an RPG, but I'll note that the "skills" class was the Thief and was terrible at combat, and it got changed to be fairly combat capable as well in 3e, and very combat capable in 4e & 5e.

-----

The modern D&D philosophy seems to be pick 2 of:
Physical offense
Physical defense
Skills
Magical offense (counts as 2 picks)
Magical defense (heal/buff)

Then pick one of those to become really good at one pick, or pick a splash of a third.
For example Fighter and Barbarian and Paladin are physical offense/defense, with the first two generally focusing one one of them and Paladin getting a splash of magical defense.
Clerics are generally physical defense and magical defense with a splash of physical offense.
Rogues are Skills and physical offense with a splash of physical defense.
Bards are Skills and Magical defense with a splash of ... well a bunch of options.

It's not a perfect model, but it's roughly how things seem to be.

------

In terms of feeling like modern D&D, that's 7 combinations before getting to splashing something.

Otoh I'm not sure that's really a good way to look at it. Classes that make it feel like D&D (to me) include things like Paladin and Ranger because of my long history of seeing the latter at tables, and everyone's longing to roll a legit Cha 17 so they could bring the former to a table. :smallamused:

[Lord Raziere]

I call DnD's current design "soda flavor" design.

from a tactical standpoint, its redundant and makes no sense to have more than one tank class.

from WotC's viewpoint, people both like classic soda and rage soda and thus are unwilling to take one of the flavors out of being sold. it matters not the exact mechanical role, people choose a class based on their own preferences and fantasy it sells, so they produce rage soda in addition to classic soda. same reasoning with wizard and sorcerer, or druid and ranger. some people want their nature cola, some people want their diet nature cola. They count on people not knowing that they can have both flavors without specific premade builds and packages to make them happen.

[Zevox]

I call DnD's current design "soda flavor" design.

from a tactical standpoint, its redundant and makes no sense to have more than one tank class.

from WotC's viewpoint, people both like classic soda and rage soda and thus are unwilling to take one of the flavors out of being sold. it matters not the exact mechanical role, people choose a class based on their own preferences and fantasy it sells, so they produce rage soda in addition to classic soda. same reasoning with wizard and sorcerer, or druid and ranger. some people want their nature cola, some people want their diet nature cola. They count on people not knowing that they can have both flavors without specific premade builds and packages to make them happen.
Comments like this make absolutely no sense to me. I mean, do some players here really just look at D&D like some kind of war game? At the classes like they exist only to fulfill a mechanical function? Because that would explain comments like this to me in theory, but I can't imagine thinking of the game that way. The classes are there because people want to play those kinds of characters, and have the game reflect that they're doing so. And by that I mean they want to play a Barbarian who enters a rage in combat, or a disciplined warrior who is just straight-up skilled with a weapon, not that they want to play a "tank." And taking some vaguely similar class and refluffing it is an unsatisfying way to do that rather than having an actual class that is designed to feel like the character type you're looking for. It's why so few people were okay with the "School of Psionics Wizard" - because a Wizard with pshycic-damaging spells is not nearly close enough to what people who like Psions are looking for. Similarly, someone who wants to play a Barbarian is not going to be happy with playing a fighter and just pretending they're getting angry in combat, they want the game to reflect it too. That sort of thing is important. Flavor being represented mechanically matters a lot to make the game fun.

[Rukelnikov]

Comments like this make absolutely no sense to me. I mean, do some players here really just look at D&D like some kind of war game? At the classes like they exist only to fulfill a mechanical function? Because that would explain comments like this to me in theory, but I can't imagine thinking of the game that way. The classes are there because people want to play those kinds of characters, and have the game reflect that they're doing so. And by that I mean they want to play a Barbarian who enters a rage in combat, or a disciplined warrior who is just straight-up skilled with a weapon, not that they want to play a "tank." And taking some vaguely similar class and refluffing it is an unsatisfying way to do that rather than having an actual class that is designed to feel like the character type you're looking for. It's why so few people were okay with the "School of Psionics Wizard" - because a Wizard with pshycic-damaging spells is not nearly close enough to what people who like Psions are looking for. Similarly, someone who wants to play a Barbarian is not going to be happy with playing a fighter and just pretending they're getting angry in combat, they want the game to reflect it too. That sort of thing is important. Flavor being represented mechanically matters a lot to make the game fun.

The games reflection are the mechanics, and the class name is just that.

In 3e I wanted to play a ninja, and I did, but I didn't take any ninja class for that (I did Rogue/Monk/Erudite). What makes the barbarian class uniquely suitable for playing a barbarian is its Rage mechanic, not the name and the fluff. If the fighter could get a rage mechanic at level 1, the fighter could be suitable enough to make a barbarian.

So yeah, the mechanics of the class are important, since they define how your characters powers interact with the world they inhabit. You can usually refluff flavor to a certain degree, but changing the mechanical implications is the purview of homebrewing.

[Lord Raziere]

Comments like this make absolutely no sense to me. I mean, do some players here really just look at D&D like some kind of war game? At the classes like they exist only to fulfill a mechanical function? Because that would explain comments like this to me in theory, but I can't imagine thinking of the game that way. The classes are there because people want to play those kinds of characters, and have the game reflect that they're doing so. And by that I mean they want to play a Barbarian who enters a rage in combat, or a disciplined warrior who is just straight-up skilled with a weapon, not that they want to play a "tank." And taking some vaguely similar class and refluffing it is an unsatisfying way to do that rather than having an actual class that is designed to feel like the character type you're looking for. It's why so few people were okay with the "School of Psionics Wizard" - because a Wizard with pshycic-damaging spells is not nearly close enough to what people who like Psions are looking for. Similarly, someone who wants to play a Barbarian is not going to be happy with playing a fighter and just pretending they're getting angry in combat, they want the game to reflect it too. That sort of thing is important. Flavor being represented mechanically matters a lot to make the game fun.

From what I can tell, yes. I personally don't. this entire thread having people talking about cutting down the classes to what is strictly "needed" however screams that some do. Its a criticism of war game mindset by pointing out the real way its designed, not an endorsement.

I personally don't like classes much myself, in terms of gaming, DnD is a B-choice at best for me. I prefer systems where the mechanics are something more liquid so I can determine what and who they are myself rather than this solid block choice of Classic soda, rage soda or wizard cola. Hard to see that as good when I can just pour some water and add whatever flavoring I want to that.

[Zevox]

The games reflection are the mechanics, and the class name is just that.

In 3e I wanted to play a ninja, and I did, but I didn't take any ninja class for that (I did Rogue/Monk/Erudite). What makes the barbarian class uniquely suitable for playing a barbarian is its Rage mechanic, not the name and the fluff. If the fighter could get a rage mechanic at level 1, the fighter could be suitable enough to make a barbarian.

So yeah, the mechanics of the class are important, since they define how your characters powers interact with the world they inhabit. You can usually refluff flavor to a certain degree, but changing the mechanical implications is the purview of homebrewing.
If the Barbarian lacked the Rage mechanic, or the Fighter had it, then those classes would be poorly designed, failing to capture the fantasy they're supposed to. Much like the School of Psionics Wizard I mentioned, which tried to slap a fantasy incompatible with that of a Wizard onto that class.


From what I can tell, yes. I personally don't. this entire thread having people talking about cutting down the classes to what is strictly "needed" however screams that some do.
I don't think the basic question the thread asks implies that. That's more a question of what everyone considers the minimum for the game to feel right to them, which is all going to be a matter of personal opinion - which classes are core to the experience of D&D to you, and which are optional? I myself left off a few of the current PHB classes, not because I don't like having them or feel they shouldn't be in the PHB or game (I absolutely do), but just because they don't quite hit the level of absolutely essential to feel like D&D at all to me. Similarly, I wouldn't usually take comments here from people who have a shorter list to mean they actively want the game reduced to just that list, just that those are the only essentials for the game to feel like D&D at all to them.


I personally don't like classes much myself, in terms of gaming, DnD is a B-choice at best for me. I prefer systems where the mechanics are something more liquid so I can determine what and who they are myself rather than this solid block choice of Classic soda, rage soda or wizard cola. Hard to see that as good when I can just pour some water and add whatever flavoring I want to that.
I... honestly can't decipher what that all is supposed to mean, personally. :smallconfused:

[noob]

I... honestly can't decipher what that all is supposed to mean, personally. :smallconfused:
Probably talking about higher abstraction rpgs with lower amounts of mechanical description and where instead of picking a class or buying abilities with points, you do things like inventing some traits that defines more or less who you are.
Ex: you say you are a navy admiral that was always worried about his troops dying after losing all his fleet, now you get to know how a boat works or how to lead its crew but would not be able to send them to their deaths but none of that would be predefined in the rules.

[Lord Raziere]

Probably talking about higher abstraction rpgs with lower amounts of mechanical description and where instead of picking a class or buying abilities with points, you do things like inventing some traits that defines more or less who you are.
Ex: you say you are a navy admiral that was always worried about his troops dying after losing all his fleet, now you get to know how a boat works or how to lead its crew but would not be able to send them to their deaths but none of that would be predefined in the rules.

no just instead of picking a class, buying abilities with points works with what I'm talking about.

[rlc]

If the Barbarian lacked the Rage mechanic, or the Fighter had it, then those classes would be poorly designed, failing to capture the fantasy they're supposed to. Much like the School of Psionics Wizard I mentioned, which tried to slap a fantasy incompatible with that of a Wizard onto that class.


I don’t think he means that barbarians shouldn’t have rage, but that a fighter that could rage would be the same thing, whether that’s through a subclass or just refluffing the action surge.
I don’t necessarily agree, but that’s my understanding of it.

[Devils_Advocate]

Wizards seem to be the only spellcasters whose fluff is that their magic is genuinely arcane. Other magic gets called that because it's supposedly somehow the same as Wizard magic, but the similarity doesn't seem to be that it's all based on complicated formulae that are difficult to master. I agree that free spells on level-up screws with the concept of the information being difficult to acquire. Traditionally, developing spells independently was an extraordinary undertaking.

So that's another reason for splitting stuff off from "the arcane list". Just like magic that comes from nature instead of deities isn't divine, most "arcane" magic these days is likewise not arcane, so why not call a spade a spade? Although I'm not sure what additional categories would be best.


This is mostly quite accurate but Leader isn't what you think.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand
What do you think I think it is? The Leader (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLeader) is the one who leads, as the name suggests. Charisma covers the charismatic and mastermind versions of The Leader, assuming that we acknowledge that Intelligence, despite the name, is not generically smart, and social manipulation falls under Charisma. The Hero (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheHero) is a Jack-Of-All-Trades (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllTrades). If anything, that fits Bard better than Paladin. It definitely fits Bard better than Fighter.

The default assumption of Dungeons & Dragons is that the player characters are adventurers. A Bard who only tells tales of others' heroic exploits in taverns, and never has any of his own, is probably an NPC. There aren't actually any non-combat classes in D&D. There are classes geared towards fighting with magic instead of with weapons, but that doesn't make them any less martial in the literal sense of the word.

The trope of the frail magical character is pretty well dead at this point. And hit points have always been more about level than class, anyway, so frailty was never a defining characteristic of any class. Even back in the day, a housecat only posed a serious threat to a first level Wizard's life.

The Fighter class, as the name suggests, distinguishes itself to the limited extent that it does by being all about combat, i.e. not particularly good for anything other than fighting. If it's lucky, it gets to be best at fighting, but in practice it's defined by its lack of other stuff. Like the Barbarian, it's Dumb Muscle (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbMuscle), making it The Big Guy (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBigGuy).

Note that I'm talking about what the classes themselves support in the context of the game as a whole. In D&D, a player character having at least some magic, for example, is the norm, not the exception. There are plenty of lower-magic stories where casting spells is unusual, something that sets one or two members of a group apart from the rest.

And players can absolutely make Fighter characters inspired by the protagonists of lower-magic stories. But such a character is both almost entirely specialized into combat and probably surrounded by less specialized party members, because that be how the classes work. Makes it a bit hard to sell the Fighter as the generically all-around competent one. And "Hey, guys, I'm playing the designated main character because he's the most generally all-around competent" would be hard enough to sell to the other players if it were true!

I'll grant that Paladin is more The Hero and more The Leader than are Sorcerer or Warlock, which are probably more The Heart and The Lancer. Still leaves the two versatile leader types under Charisma.

If you want to go into more detail it's probably something like

Big Guy: Barbarian, Fighter
Hero/Big Guy: Paladin
Hero/Heart: Bard
Hero/Lancer: Ranger
Lancer: Rogue, Blood Hunter, Warlock
Lancer/Heart: Monk
Heart: Cleric
Heart/Smart Guy: Druid, Sorcerer
Smart Guy: Wizard, Artificer, Mystic


I look at Rogue and see Garrett from the Thief games.
You're incredibly good at what you do; namely sneaking, disarming, stealing, etc. You have an assortment of equipment that is both typical and specialized. You are good enough at ambushing people to knock them out or assassinate them. But if you get in a straight up fight with a trained fighter (such as a guard) you're either gonna successfully escape or you're gonna die. Because you can't outfight them. Because they're trained much better than you at fighting.
Yeah, one rather expects "good at avoiding fights" and "good at fighting" to be negatively correlated amongst adventurers. That feels much more like a natural division than magic being split up into "arcane" and "divine". D&D may have started with Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric, but Cleric was the original class intermediate between existing classes, tweaked to be more unique and existing alongside multiclassing for some reason. Thief, on the other hand, feels like the final non-remixed archetype, adding something different. There's a reason that a lot of games use Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.


If the Barbarian lacked the Rage mechanic, or the Fighter had it, then those classes would be poorly designed, failing to capture the fantasy they're supposed to.
Fighter is generic by design, so including rage by default wouldn't fit, but I don't think that making Barbarian a Fighter subclass would go against either of their identities.


I... honestly can't decipher what that all is supposed to mean, personally. :smallconfused:
I take it that Lord Raziere doesn't much like the whole, y'know... "Select thy character concept from this list of a dozen Standard Archetypes; and, should thou wish to play something else, then, verily, that is too bad."

[LibraryOgre]

And, as a point of personal preference, the barbarian having rage isn't necessary to make something feel like D&D to me. That's a way later addition, so "berserker" as a kind of fighter works just fine for me.

[Arkhios]

Dwarf, Gnome, Human, Night Elf

Warrior, Rogue, Mage, Priest


...oops. wrong game!

[Devils_Advocate]

Oh, hey, related to my previous post, Terrible Writing Advice did a video about leader characters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawvXdBYlAI)!

One more point to add to that discussion: The generic protagonist character of an ensemble cast is only even the one who the highest-pH audience members project themselves onto in most media. But additionally, a multiplayer game like D&D has each player take on the role of a specific character. Under normal circumstances, that's the character that the player identifies with. So there extra isn't any "one protagonist of the story" role to be filled. Anyone taking on the role of party leader likely has more to do with the player than with anything else, but that role is more likely to exist than the role of mainest character.

An Adventurer Is You! (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnAdventurerIsYou)


Its a life long spiritual relationship, based on faith, worship and devotion to a higher power, the rituals change from religion to religion but the relationship is transcendent, deep, and when you become a cleric this goes to a deeper level. A pact with an otherworldly power has nothing to do with those things. It is a bargain that can (if player and dm are interested in it ofc) goes beyond the backstory of the character but doesn't have to. Its a deal made with a power that granted you magic in exchange of something. It dosent have to be spiritual (besides the contact where the pact is sealed ), doesn't involve worship (as you can even revile the powers involved ) and most important doesn't require faith at all. The magic is yours and you dont have to believe in it, its there and you paid a price for it. They are not the same in any way shape or form.
Being granted magical power by a powerful supernatural entity is the same as being granted magical power by a powerful supernatural entity in that you're being granted magical power by a powerful supernatural entity. They're very obviously very much the same in that way. Hence the comparison.

While 3rd Edition had lots of rules about how characters could lose their class features (e.g. by changing alignment), 5E generally just... doesn't do that. Unlike Paladin, the Cleric class doesn't seem to contain any more implication than Warlock that the character's magic can be lost or revoked.

The very existence of divine magic in the setting significantly raises the bar on what's required for a religion to be taken seriously by most people. Deities with followers who visibly bless their allies and curse their enemies are going to be strongly favored over those purported to reward and punish people in completely unverifiable ways. Like, if you think that there might be something to claims that some dubiously existent entity controls the weather and can be influenced through sacrifice, you can run some double-blind tests, and if it turns out that it's bunk, that's fine, because you don't live in a world where wishful thinking is required to believe that you have the aid of a higher power. Of course, some people will believe weird conspiracy theories regardless of the evidence, but given that Clerics are expected to have high Wisdom, it doesn't make much sense to say that that's a prerequisite for the class.

In that context, the cult of a devil prince isn't really all that functionally different from the religion of a god. This guy has mortal followers who zap people who get in their way, which exactly how you know a god is legit! Yeah, their magic may come in a different, spicier flavor, but that doesn't make the benefits of sucking up to the head honcho of this organization any less tangible.

The deities of D&D don't all have the same teachings at all, and don't necessarily all want the same sort of relationship with their followers. For example, would a goddess of rational self-interest inspire, or even want, blind faith or unconditional devotion? ... Well, okay, but this is fantasy, stuff is allowed to occasionally suck less than in real life in interesting ways.

... Of course, you could say that she would just have Warlocks instead of Clerics. In fact, the same entity can have both, right? Like, Asmodeus is an archfiend but also a Faerunian god in 5th Edition, and presumably has Warlocks and Clerics. Meaning that the difference lies in the spellcasters and not in the entities that they get their magic from. Okay. But... either way, it's a mortal gaining the favor of and being granted magical power by a high-up extraplanar type. And we can draw distinctions about how that happens, but it feels to me more like that serves to justify the existence of two different classes than that there have to be two different classes for these two wildly different arrangements.

I'll admit that I'm less than clear on the difference between "worship" and other activities, and between "spiritual" relationships and other relationships. This is one of those cases where looking words up doesn't really help to clarify their meanings, because they're defined using related words that are themselves vague in the same way.* Feel free to explain, but bear in mind that you can only usefully do so in terms of other things, because (so far as I can tell) it's the subject matter that I don't understand, not just specific terms for something that I itself get.

*E.g., if good and evil, right and wrong, ethics, morality, etc. are only defined in terms of each other, then it's not even meaningful to talk about whether one has a duty to save a drowning child, because things like duty don't relate to things like drowning or child, only to things like honor and virtue. A fully incestuous "walled garden" of words / concepts with no path out fails to connect to anything else.

[Psyren]

I agree that Fighter could work just fine with a rage mechanic and still keep its identity. (See for example World of Warcraft - Fury Warriors are the "Barbarian" archetype, but even Arms and Protection utilize Rage to a degree.)



I... honestly can't decipher what that all is supposed to mean, personally. :smallconfused:

They're saying they prefer classless systems. Which is certainly a valid preference, but D&D will pretty much never be that, at least not by default. A classless variant of some kind could be possible.

[Witty Username]

If the Barbarian lacked the Rage mechanic, or the Fighter had it, then those classes would be poorly designed, failing to capture the fantasy they're supposed to. Much like the School of Psionics Wizard I mentioned, which tried to slap a fantasy incompatible with that of a Wizard onto that class.

A fair point but this has an issue with archetypes can be achieved in multiple ways and an individual observer may include or exclude traits in the archetype not covered.( subclasses are intended to fill this gap).

Like for me personally a Barbarian by class description is a tribesmen, with a connection to the wilderness or disconnected from dense civilization with access to primal rage. But mechanically Barbarian only really has the primal rage, so for specific characters I may drift to Ranger or Rogue if I want those other feels (or monk, that one time).



I personally don't like classes much myself, in terms of gaming, DnD is a B-choice at best for me. I prefer systems where the mechanics are something more liquid so I can determine what and who they are myself rather than this solid block choice of Classic soda, rage soda or wizard cola. Hard to see that as good when I can just pour some water and add whatever flavoring I want to that.

Hm, would D&D feel like D&D without the class system?
Probably as long as there was a accessible spellcasting system and high fantasy feel that might be good enough. I know that 3.5s generic classes, warrior, expert, spellcaster felt close enough for me.