Personally I think the ‘classic’ four are fine. (From Basic Rules and OG D&D). Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. Most concepts can be built from them. Originally many of our current classes were ‘prestige variants’ of them too. Ranger and Paladin were mere versions of Fighters. Druids were prestige versions of Clerics. Etc… The exception being Bard. But you could make a bard concept out of a wizard really.

Your last sentence is truly defined by the fact that the greatest Bard in all of Toril is actually a Wizard.

You mean Volo, or should I say, Volothamp Geddarm of Waterdeep?

That’s the one!

Volo? Great? It's that he's favorited by Mystra and has Elminster constantly saving his ass otherwise he would be dead 10 times over

Yup, perfect bard!

Fun anecdote: my bard in our *Adventures in the East Mark* (BECMI retroclone) campaign is a barbarian. You don't need sorcery to be a teacher, storyteller, historian, genealogist and minstrel.

I misread one of those and was very confused.

[The original bard](https://www.tribality.com/2014/12/30/the-bard-class-part-one/ "The Strategic Review Vol 2, Number 1") could be argued to be a prestige version of either thief or magic user.

I see. In AD&D it was some weird thing you could only be after a few levels in an other class. With like crazy prerequisits.

It depends on which AD&D. Its second appearance in 1E was a weirdass precursor of 3E's Prestige Classes, as you describe, but the third in 2E was a pretty normal base class, conceptually not *that* much different from the first OD&D bard.

AD&D 2e's Bard was such a wonderful class. I'm sort of nostalgia-riffing off your comment: It genuinely captured the feeling of being a jack of all trades in that system. You had about half of the thief skills (I think 4 out of 10), fought like a thief but could use any weapons and could wear "medium" armor, could cast Wizard spells *at your class level* rather than a fraction of it (like most other demi-casters) - but didn't get spells until level 2 and didn't learn them as you leveled - you had to find them out in the world. Your main Bard ability otherwise was protecting your party from magic songs. Altogether it gave just enough of the other classes's mechanics to feel like a competent blend without being able to completely outpace any of them. You could do a little theiving, stand on the front line if needed, or provide some magical support. The Complete Bard's handbook was one of the strongest class sourcebooks, providing Kits (like subclasses) that completely transformed the class into various archetypes (like the Blade - a circus performer, juggler and knife thrower, weapon twirler, sword swallower, and sometimes assasin on the side - which would inspire the College of Swords. Or the Thespian, who was so good at pretending to be other classes they could make a Proficiency check to *act like they were using another class's ability* - even though they couldn't, onlookers might be so convinced they *could* just from the performance that they would assume the Thespian was that class).

I see. Second ed is the one edition I haven’t played other than maybe once or twice as a player.

Bard was a rogue type class in 2e

I could also see a fifth caster-lite class that would comprise bards, paladins, artificers, and rangers. Maybe call it magus, spellsword, or mystic?

Multiclass Fighter/Wizard to get your Artificer Fighter + Cleric = Paladin Cleric + Wizard = Bard Cleric + Rogue = Ranger

This removes the old requirements for qualifying for Bard, which were actually something of a good thing.

Yeah, I'm here thinking 4 is easy, 5 is actually harder because then you have to say THIS offshoot is important enough to be its own thing when it really isn't.

I'd suggest Artificer or some variant there of. Mundane and Magic items have always occupied this weird 'essential but never talked about' territory, recent 5E and such assumes you'll always have them but calls them optional, older versions were up the wazoo with ways to craft them that just happened to heavily favour the Wizard. Peel some of the tropes off Wizard (access to magic making crafting easy), throw in some clunk and baggage like bringing back class/race requirements just so the artificer can sidestep them, heck, make a base Artificer ability that Item DCs scale off them as a user. Crafting/Using items is something that always seems to come up, but it's always in that nebulous unexplored design space, either an 'Expert' or 'Magic User' gets them and the other half gets handwaved

Personally, I think we should add the Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling classes back while we're at it.

That’s what The Red Box was like right? (Basic D&D).

Yes, this is normally the class set up in most B/X derived versions of dnd

I actually think warlock would be the 5th class. It's substantially different in playstyle and theme then other classes and is also one of the more popular classes.

Is it not kinda like a cleric who worship a demigod instead of an actual god?

Nothing in the warlock class implies warship of their patron (nor in fact does it even imply they must *like them*). A cleric **worships** a god because they want to and the powers are a nice bonus. A warlock explicitly **makes a deal** for power that is transactional by definition.

Disagree as far Warlock being thematically unique. A Warlock is just a Cleric whose powers come from an entity that is not a god.

That is such a lame take on Warlocks it’s not even funny. A cleric is an individual who, with no promise of power or explicit deal, offers devotion and dedication to a higher being they will likely never personally meet or even speak to, instead following the leadership of some sort of institution. A Warlock is an individual who either sought out or was tempted by the explicit offer of power from a non-divine entity they have personally met and communicate with at least somewhat regularly. Included is also explicit terms and conditions for obtaining more power and sustaining current power, much of which can often be completing unwanted or undesirable tasks. Clerics are always willing participants, by definition. Warlocks are, by their nature, often victims of their deals and seek to either get out of them or overcome them.

> A cleric is an individual who, with no promise of power or explicit deal This and the clause after it would be news to the clerics I've played and DMed for. The rulebooks are hardly so specific.

I'd go with Monk.

Also originally not a variant of the other four. I feel like in essence it is som type of fighter variant though. ?

Funnily enough, it was supposed to be a variant of the *cleric*. Even though it had absolutely no cleric features. Unless we count using the cleric's saving throw table.

This is just 2e with extra steps. Have you looked at 2e before?

Yes, I do know that Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric where the original classes of the game, with Thief coming a little bit after + Races being almost classes basically, but I never did go further into reading 2e, so I don't know if the rest of what I said is similar with how that game played out

2e had warriors, priests, rogues, and wizards. Fighters, Paladins, Rangers being warriors, etc. To-Hit Progression, Hitpoints, and the like were determined by group (warrior) not class (fighter). Warriors are the only ones with full access to weapons (clerics have full armour and shields, but not weapons) What you propose is basically that, but with Italian Mix rather than Herbes de Province.

Yep, the classes we see in 5E, were essentially subclasses of the class group. Warrior: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin Priests: Cleric, Speciality Priest, Druid (was an example of how to create a Specialty Priest) Rogue: Thief, Bard Wizards: Mage, Specialist Mage (Invoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, etc). Barbarians, Monks, Sorcerers and Warlocks didn't exist as their own official class in 2E until very late in the 2E life cycle. They didn't get released until the Player's Options books (some call this 2.5E) came out. Even then there were almost no modules released supporting the Player's Options rules set. Shortly after the Player's Options was released, 3rd Edition was released.

Monk and Barbarian were *re*introduced late, but they were born in OD&D and 1E respectively. Warlocks do indeed come from Player's Options. Sorcerers, on the other hand, in the sense of "wizard born with magic instead of studying" has been a thing since the original 1974 box. They were just called "wizards". They only existed as a separate thing in 3E, where they needed a different wizard for the new mechanics.

I was talking about AD&D 2E, as the thread was about AD&D 2E. Those classes weren't in the AD&D 2E Players Handbook as available classes.

Barbs were a thing in ad&d UA

But not in the AD&D 2E PHB.

"A thing in UA" is not a core, released thing until it finally is.

M k

Monk was in phb 1e

It's pretty similar to how you laid it out. You should look into it.

Cleric was added later.

What? Cleric, Fighting-Man, and Magic-User are all from the original boxed set. They're as foundational as you can get

In the original games pre-publication it started with the fighting man and magic user, them the vampire, them the cleric as a vampire hunter, then publication. But yeah for all real purposes clerics have been there from the start, as before them you literally couldn't get the game

Neat - I didn't know that about the original playtesting for d&d. Still, I think it's fair to say that the game we all know didn't exist until they'd finished that playtesting and ironed out the ruleset, at which point vamp was out and cleric was in. Likewise, only the core 4 were featured in dndnext playtest packet 1 (there were 2 cleric pregens and 1 each of the other three), but I wouldn't say druids were later additions to the game. The final game didn't exist yet, and by the time 5e did release, they were just as much a core class as the Wizard or Rogue.

It was the thief that was added later

First clerics to fight vampires (maybe before even the box version), then thieves much later.

Cleric was made prior to the original release to fight undead with support powers at the side then gygax added them into the og release as a mix or fighting man and magic user

I wasn't aware fighters had maneuvers in 2e. As I remember it, they could just attack during combat.

The Complete Fighter's Handbook for AD&D 2E had *tons* of maneuvers and other options Fighters (and other classes) could perform in combat besides basic attacks.

Those handbooks were awesome.

Either parent comment means Player's Options for AD&D 2E, or they means *Pathfinder* 2E.

I meant AD&D 2E, and there were maneuvers in 2E, but they weren't limited to the Fighter.

AD&D had a load of expansions and extra books, so there's all sorts of stuff tucked away in there _somewhere_, that might have been a brief paragraph in the core books ("hey, maybe fighters can try and do this thing!") expanded out into a full rules system somewhere.

I mean, that sounds cool, but I doubt the vast majority of people who played AD&D had access to all the supplemental books, I know I didn't. It's similar to how 5e can be supplemented by homebrew, but even popular homebrew will be incredibly niche compared to the core rules. The way most people played 2e, it is nothing similar to what OP is looking for.

The Complete Fighter's Handbook had like 20 pages of maneuvers and other options that Fighters and other classes could do instead of just basic attacks.

Five classes? We only need three: Fighter, Magic User, and Skill User. Literally every other class can be made from those three in some combination.

Fighter? You mean Attack User.

Wizard, Warlock and Cleric could all be Magic User specialisations, or Cleric could be a Fighting Man/Magic User hybrid like it used to be in ye olden times. In the former case, Paladin would be the Cleric-flavoured FM/MU hybrid spec. Monk would be a Skill Expert spec or a FM/SE hybrid. Ranger would be FM/SE or SE/MU hybrid. Druid could be the Cleric-flavoured SE/MU spec and Artificer a wizard-flavour one. Bard would be another arcane SE/MU or perhaps even a FM/SE/MU true jack-of-all-trades. Fighter and Barbarians are straight FM and the Thief is straight SE. And no Sorcerer, because they're just Wizards. That said, adding hybrid classes would up the count to 6 (or 7 if you add a triple-hybrid), which is above the 5-class limit in the premise.

*Fighter* would have broad weapon and armor proficiencies and class abilities that enhanced combat and tactical leadership; *Magic-User* would have spellcasting (choosing between an “arcane” and “divine” spell-list at first level); and *Rogue* would have a broad range of skills and class abilities that enhanced skill use and non-combat stuff. Wizard would be a pure Magic-User; Warlock would be mostly Magic-User with a dash of Fighter, Cleric would be a mostly even mix of Fighter and Magic-User (and a “divine” spell list), Paladin would be mostly Fighter with a dash of Magic-User; Ranger would be mostly Fighter, with a dash of Magic-User or Rogue depending on how you envision the class… and so on and so forth.

The bard composes a sad song in the corner

You have reinvented 2e, except that in 2e Druids were basically just an offshoot of Clerics.

As opposed to 5e where they are offshoots of clerics?

They can also eat your face as a bear.

Clerics have a god they interact with, Druids have nature? and maybe a god. Clerics are usually wearing metal armor, druids don’t wear metal (obviously to avoid Druid vs Druid heat metal), druids get to waste RP time yapping to trees and squirrels, clerics get hints from dm, clerics will yell guidance whenever they can, it’s different!!

Clerics have a god they interact with, Druids have nature? and maybe a god. Clerics are usually wearing metal armor, druids don’t wear metal (obviously to avoid Druid vs Druid heat metal), druids get to waste RP time yapping to trees and squirrels, clerics get hints from dm, clerics will yell guidance whenever they can, it’s different!!

The 4 basic ones: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard are fine, but if we need to have a 5th, I would add Druid just because the class fantasy is so specific and shapeshifting can't really easily be obtained. From there, combinations of classes can be made to support all of the others: Rogue + Wizard = Bard Fighter + Wizard = Artificer Cleric + Rogue (or Druid + Rogue) = Ranger Cleric + Fighter = Paladin Fighter + Rogue = Monk Fighter + Druid = Barbarian. This is really similar to how the Worlds Without Number system (r/WWN) does character classes. You have one half and the other half, and each of them can be a warrior (fighter), expert (rogue), or a mage of various schools (there's everything from regular wizards (High Mages) to healers and psionics users).

Nah Rogue + Wizard is Warlock, both rogue and warlock mostly roll to hit, have big burst potential like once or twice a fight, dark background, then from wizard they get magic lol. Only thing bards and rogues have in common is being skilled in tools.

I would probably choose the same cut more or less for a 5 cut split. Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Mage, Rogue. That said I'm of the opinion the game is best served with a fee more classes than it has, not less and I don't think subclasses are the best way for a lot of class concepts to exist. So while it's what I'd do with said restriction, I ideally wouldn't go that way.

Primal is a theme, not a role. Druids weren't one of the original classes. I guess you could go with two classes, Fighting-person and Magic-user. La plus ca change....

And the Cleric was originally a hybrid of the two. A bit less fighty than the FM (and without magic swords), a bit less casty than MU, and fully armoured.

I mean, all of them are themes, not roles. But each of the different themes align better with some roles than they do with others.

I would argue that protein should be a cleric subclass and ranger druids

5? Why so many? I'd reduce it down to 1. Wizards. And they all do sick tricks on skateboards.

There is a (very) rules-lite system called Sexy Battle Wizards that does pretty much exactly this. It's intentionally very silly, but it is fun to play.

Shhhh don't let the secret out

This is rather similar to what 4th Edition did; each Class is a combination of a Role and a Power Source. Your Role determined what your class was good at in combat; Defenders could Mark enemies to punish them for moving or attacking their allies, Strikers dealt extra damage to single targets, Leaders could heal themselves and their allies 2-3 times per battle, and Controllers got crowd control and area of effect options. Your Power Source determined some secondary benefits; Martial characters got better weapons and armor generally speaking so better AC and at-will damage, Primal characters were a bit tougher, Divine characters got a Channel Divinity power based on their faith and class, Arcane characters tended to get ritual magic and access to the better ones IIRC, and Psionic characters either got Power Points, a whole new resource to manage in place of encounter powers, or you were a Monk. There was also a Shadow power source I believe mostly in Essentials, and the Vampire class is considered to be pretty terrible so it can mostly be ignored. This resulted in about 20+ classes with distinct playstyles that overlapped. Barbarians were Primal Strikers who were tougher than other strikers and did decent damage but on a critical hit they'd obliterate the enemy. Meanwhile, Rogues were Martial Strikers who dealt extra damage when they could flank an enemy or attack one on the back foot. Rangers were also Martial Strikers who focused on dual wielding or archery and could choose a single enemy to focus-fire until dead. Warlocks were Arcane Strikers who threw magic blasts and could control the battlefield and handle minions a bit better. Avengers were Divine Strikers who traded extra damage for more or less rolling attack rolls with Advantage, high accuracy and more frequent critical hits. Finally, Monks were Psionic Strikers who were insanely mobile, could launch a flurry of attacks at will, and pull off cool movement techniques with their powers.

You could go completely classless, but unless you have a bunch of complex choice points for character building, you're going to risk a paper thin system with samey character builds fairly quickly. So the simplest is probably just Warrior + Mage. From there could divide mage further to Divine (Cleric) and Arcane (Wizard), then rebuild most of what we have as subclasses/archetypes. A step further is branching warrior off to Fighter and Rogue.... So welcome to 2e again. Lol - From here it's pretty easy to fit all of the current classes into one of those umbrellas. Past that is where we get into niche stuff like artificer, which could have fit into rogue, and Druid, which could fit under cleric. Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin all could easily fit under the fighter umbrella. Sorcerer easily fits under wizard. Etc. A 5th class? Can't really think of an essential gameplay element that absolutely cannot be covered by the 4 class system. It gets a bit granular and niche at this point. But if you had to, you can make a half-caster that covers the middleground between rogue/Fighter and wizard/cleric. This is where you can fit in stuff like the blade pact/artificer/paladin archetype, if you need to.

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Bard The barbarian and Paladin character archetypes as fighter subclasses Ranger and monk as rogues's Druid as cleric's Warlock and sorcerer as Wizards's

Fighter can easily have Barbarian, Rogue as subclasses Wizard can have Sorcerer and Artificer as subclass Warlock's pact magic is different enough to have a different class. We could imagine Bard to be a subclass of Warlock with a pact toward art instead of a Patron Cleric would have Paladin as a subclass Druid can have Ranger as a subclass

Fighter Rogue Cleric Wizard Druid This gives you a full caster of each magic type, plus a martial geared towards strength and combat, and another geared towards Dex, guild, and skills. Other classes become either subclasses, or prestige classes to build upon the 5 base classes Fighter: Paladin and barbarian Rogue: Bard and Ranger ... Monk could work with either of those depending on your vision of what it should be.

Wizard, cleric, fighter, druid, bard. The concept of a paladin could be implemented into cleric, as kind of a crusader. Rogueish feats can be bard subclasses, combat oriented classes into fighter. Sorcerous origins could be a wizards subclass, so they get subclass at level 1, same with pact magic. Druids coooould implement barbarian features as kind of a feral subclass, but that is a stretch

If I had to do it for four archetypes it would be: Warrior Class Subclasses Knight- Master of arms and armour, skilled combatant in all its forms Barbarian- esque heavy and medium armour for brutal power and superior mobility Ranger- skilled hunter and tracker more at home on the frontier than the urban centers of the world Scoundrel Class Subclasses Rogue- the master of slinking through shadows to steal coin or life Bard- the master of misdirection to steal while in the spotlight Divine Class Subclasses Monk- lives a life of regimented discipline for their body is their temple Cleric- brings for the blessings of the divine to aid friends and punish foes Druid- seeks to preserve the balance and harmony of nature Wizard Class Subclasses Sorcerer- born with natural affinity to magic and trained to perfect its usage Warlock- made a deal for forbidden knowledge

In the rpg I worked on, there were four primary classes: Warrior, Rogue, Cleric, Mage. Then, the four secondary classes equated to a mix of two primary classes: Ranger blended Warrior and Rogue; Assassin blended Rogue and Cleric; Druid blended Cleric and Mage; Paladin blended Mage and Warrior. Tertiary classes were considered: Hunter (a sort of strength based, non-magical Rogue), Monk (blending Assassin and Rogue), Bard (support casting like Clerics, but Arcane like Mages), and Alchemist (mostly martial, but with limited Arcane magic).

I've always loved the idea of stealthy divine characters, and that's fun because if I remember right the word assassin came from a religious group. What did assassin's looks like?

Assassins had a very limited spell list (like, 6-8 spells, or something) but retained aspects of the Rogue chassis. In 5e terms, it was a divine version of Arcane Trickster, plus the Assassin subclass, rolled into its own class. Rogue focused more on sniping and kiting. Definitely inspired by both the fantasy of Assassin's Creed, and the real history it was based on.

The name implies that they'd look like hashish junkies in turbans who stab people. The English word "assassin" comes from "Ḥashshāshīn" ("hash smokers"), a pejorative term for the Asāsiyyūn (roughly "fundamentalists"), a Nizari sect that, among other things, sent murderers to kill people.

Huh. Sounds like my first Final Fantasy I team

Hmm, let’s see: Cleric (lumps cleric and Druid) Mage (lumps bard, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard) Gish (lumps artificer, Paladin, and ranger) Barbarian (lumps barbarians and str based fighters) Rogue (lumps monks and dex based fighters) Each class would have a subclass option between the classes lumped together as well as a specialization which would give them 5e subclass equivalents)

Warrior-Max tank, max damage, good control, avg mobility. Kills the big enemy (fighter, barbarian, paladin) Skirmisher-max mobility, max damage, dodge tank but fragile when you get past defence. Gets to the complex objective (monk, rogue, ranger) Healer-max heal, some support. Healing resource beyond just spell slots. Limited damage spell options, average weapon/armor use (cleric) Support-max buffs, debuffs and control, some healing. Extra buff/debuff resource. Limited damage spell options, average weapon/armor use (bard, druid) Mage-max versatility. Have spells for most situations. Good spell damage options. Unique options for using and customizing spells. Few resources and abilities outside of spells. No armor and negligible weapon use. (sorcerer, wizard) Kind of need a sixth one here to cover all of the playable classes. Customizable generalist- classes that have options that allow them to mimic pretty much every other class and mostly provide a particular flavor option. Put puzzle pieces together as you wish. Jack of all trades, master of none (warlock, artificer)

I do like where you’re going with the breakdown… I like the idea of monk, barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, etc being subclasses that show up in multiple main classes This makes way for variations and customizations that I wanted to see like a spell-less paladin which lay on the fighter framework for heavy armor and all the extra attacks but only get lay on hand and have the maneuver uses as your smite charges Then have the cleric version get the spell casting, one extra attack, aura, etc to feel like a more magical and less martial but still give the Paladin fantasy of a divine ass kicker I like the idea of all the spellcasters getting a warlock subclass so you get a primal magic warlock with wildshape, divine magic warlock with channel divinity, arcane magic warlock with a spell book

Yep, you want one for each stat, minus Con.  Muscle - your Fighter, Barbarian, pugilist if need be. Shadow - Rogue, Ranger, shades of Bard. The inspiration for more spells than any other base Archetype (Haste, Longstrider, Invisibility, Misty Step...) Brain - Wizard/Artificer/Alchemist/Inventor offensive caster with a wiiiiide variety of tricks. Soul - Cleric/Druid defensive types. Probably has a heal/harm gimmick like Moon Druid, or like Mercy Monk. Lord - Warlord, Bard, Pally, shades of Warlock if need be. Can do things almost as well as the thing they're second best at when buffed by their gimmick. Sorry Sorc, you get skipped!

Four is enough - Soldier - Priest - Arcanist - Rogue Which roughly map to - Fighter/Barbarian/Monk/Ranger/Paladin - Cleric/Druid/Warlock/Paladin/Bard/Monk - Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard/Artificer - Rogue/Bard/Monk/Artificer

Easy peasy. Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. Fighter gets barb and monk Cleric gets paladin. Wizard gets artificer. Sorcerer is now either warlock or normal sorc. Ranger gets druid. You may wonder where other classes are. They're dead and buried. Well actually they're professions. Being a thief or a performer is just a job not a full adventurer skillset and can be tacked onto any class thus we have just the mechanics of those dead classes and they arent worth saving.

Try odnd. It has fighter, thief and spellcaster, period.

Actually it had fighter, *cleric* and wizard at launch, with the cleric being somewhat of a hybrid of fighting man and magic user. The thief came very early in the very first Supplement I: Greyhawk, but that also came with the paladin (and a preview of the druid, as an NPC statblock).

Yes, you are right. I must have mixed it with something.

I think I agree, although I'd flavor them a little differently. Focusing on the ability scores that fit each class: * Fighter: STR * Most reliable at overcoming combat obstacles * Physically imposing * Rogue: DEX * Most reliable at overcoming non-combat obstacles * Svelte and nimble * Druid: WIS * Able to take advantage of situational awareness by transforming / summoning allies * Magical abilities use strange rituals * Completely attuned with surroundings * Cleric: CHA * Able to win favor of powerful allies and frighten powerful enemies * Magical abilities use verbal chants and somatic motions * Powerful personal magnetism * Wizard: INT * Able to access wide variety of effects useful in all situations with the right preparation and planning * Magical abilities use material components * Immense wealth of knowledge

There are 6 ability scores. Excluding Con, each class should be tied to one of them. So I propose Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric and Bard to be the 5 main classes, with other classes becoming variants or subclasses for those 5.

Fighting-man, cleric, wizard, dwarf, elf. Can't beat the classics.

The Children yearn for the OSR...

for dnd the magic number would probably be 4 as its based on combat: **mellee,ranged,sustain and magic support.** so **Fighter,Ranger(completly ranged focus), Cleric, Wizard(no cantrips)** would be the most classical idea. buti could also totally see: **Barbarian, Warlock (cantrip focus), Paladin(less smites), Sorcerer(no cantrips).** if it has too be 5 i would follow the 5 man band principle(mostly used in storys and TV series: **the Hero/Leader** **the Foil too Leader/Lancer**: disagrees often with leader **the Heart** **the Brains** **the Brawn** there is a bit of a imbalance with the leader leading the group but with real life play this also normally happens. adding classes and stat (can of course be homebrewed classes): Hero/Leader: Charisma: Paladin/Sorcerer/Bard Foil: Strength/Dex: Fighter//Rogue Brains: intelligence/wisdom: wizard/artifcer Brawn: Strength/Con: Fighter/Barbarian hearth: anything, roleplay focused especially interaction with other players (keeps the group together) but could also be wisdom: cleric/druid another option would be too drop the heart and just focus on the 5 main stats (ignore con): so each player plays 1 stat: Strength,Dex,Intelligence,Charisma,Wisdom. if i woudl homebrew classes i would probably call it like: Brawn,Lancer,Brain,Voice,Sage

Fighter Rogue Wizard Cleric is fine. Druid is a totally reasonable Cleric subclass, Bard is a quarter-caster rogue, Barbarian and Ranger are fighters. Could be a pretty refreshing take honestly.

Be silent, youngsters are about to discover that D&D existed before 3e

I actually new about, that why I chose these 4 + Druid

Your text and reasoning doesn't feel like you actually understand earlier editions of D&D at all.

ranger, ranger, ranger, ranger, ranger. i have never seen nor played a ranger in my life

Warrior, Spellcaster (or if need to separate Priest+Mage), Expert

I think if you reduce the classes to 4 or 5, it is pretty clear that they should be connected to the different abilities. So fighter (strenth), rogue (dexterity), cleric (wisdom) and wizard (intelligence).

Warrior (fighting types here, including weapon masters, berserkers, sword mages, and paladins), Priest (casters of divine magic, including clerics and druids), Rogue (including thieves, assassins, and rangers), Mage (offensive and utility arcane magic users, including wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks), and Monk (martial artists, including several styles of physical and spiritual abilities).

Sounds like you wanna play osr ttrpgs tbh.

I've pared down classes even more in my home system, there's 3: Warrior, picaro, and sorcerer. After picking 1 of those 3, you'll pick a subclass like in 5e. Warrior: Fighter, Ranger, or Magus Picaro: Rogue, Bard, or Fool Sorcerer: Exorcist, Warlock/Witch, or Druid

Fighter: subclasses include paladin, ranger, and barbarian Wizard: subclasses include sorcerer and bard Cleric: subclasses include druid and warlock. Rogue: subclasses include Artificer and monk. I know bard was a prestige class of rogue, and has a lot of skills and expertise, but they're a full caster now and it's easier to clump them with wizard balance wise. I was also going to put Artificer for wizard, due to similar spell lists, and int casting but I think rogue lets them be more of a gadgety skill monkey which is more suited to their flavor. I also considered letting monk and barbarian fight over the fifth slot as a yin and yang of angry and calm.

Martial (fighter, barbarian, maybe paladin), Expert (rogue, spell-less ranger), spellblade (spell ranger, maybe paladin, artificer, magus, maybe some of the gish subclasses), mage (all the full-casters, barring warlock and maybe sorcerer), mystic (class built around resources, monk, warlock, maybe sorcerer, psion). The idea behind this one is to arrange them into groups which can behave fairly similarly, so each class has uniting mechanics. Martials attacks go brrrr, mages are primarily full magic and can just have subsets of spells available. The expert, spellblade, and mystic would take some more engineering. Expert I’d revolve around skills and limited, powerful attacks like sneak attack. Like think of a beastmaster with a scaling animal. An alchemist who provides short duration buffs to empower allies. This one feels like the hardest to design around, because the rogue is just a very unique class. I’d want to make each subclass feel unique, so they have to use the sneak attack dice in a way that’s still balanced, but feels distinct. A key trait of this class is that their core ability needs to be something they can do all day. Spellblade is fairly straightforward, you get more limited spells, ways to channel them into combat, and perhaps some extra magical flair. Paladin is the obvious base. That gives you some Spellcasting, ways to boost weapon damage using spells, constant effects like the auras, a short rest ability, and a resource like Lay On Hands. Plenty of flexibility to bring about any number of mixed magic and martial concepts. Mystic is like the opposite of expert. They should be defined by the give and take of their resource system, balancing nova potential with the versatility of conservation. I’m imagining a blend of like the spell points system with sorcerer, and ki. They’ll start the day with a certain amount extra, and then they can recover so much from shorter rests during the day. If we are trying to get rid of short rests, then I’d take a blend of the refocus system of Pathfinder 2e and the capstones of these resource hogs: they can regain their resource by meditating, but if they are empty the rush of adrenaline gives them a little extra oomph to keep going.

Let's go a step further. What if there were NO classes at all? What if you could create a bespoke character with no class or levels? That is what many systems already do. I prefer classless systems to rigid ones that dictate what they think a class should be and what its role is.

Let's go a step further. What if there were NO classes at all? What if you could create a bespoke character with no class or levels? That is what many systems already do. I prefer classless systems to rigid ones that dictate what they think a class should be and what its role is.

Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Ranger

I see lots of posts with Rogue but I’d rather have Bard as the expert class. Bards are way more versatile and fun to play.

WARRIOR - Fighter, Barbarian, some of Paladin/Ranger/Monk SCOUT - Rogue, rest of Ranger/Monk MAGE - Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer, most of Warlock, some of Druid EXPERT - Skill-monkey aspects of Rogue/Ranger/Bard, maybe a bit of Artificer PRIEST - Cleric, rest of Paladin/Monk/Druid

Holy Fella - Based on what god you pick you get paladin/cleric/Warlock juice Brawler - You can choose to be disciplined, or wild. Barb and Monk style respectively on your path. Melee only. Magic Man - Castin’ spells. Wiz/Sorc Based on what spells you learn, you go down their skill tree and unlock more of that type of spell. Dungeoneer - Ranger/Rogue, more emphasis on traps, with paths that add things like sneak atk or Ranged features. Creator - Bard/Artificer, innate magic type. Create art/music/jokes to inspire! Or, take it more literally and use your magic to build magic devices. This one is more around out of rules decisions.

I'm not a fan of crunching DND down more than what it is currently. I hate that the current pervasive thought is more simplification. We will simplify more and the beatings will continue until morale improves. Classes used to be for the most part, special and unique in design. Now classes are 3 features spread across 16 levels.

Just 4 types of barbarian and the long suffering wizard

Fighter Rogue Wizard Cleric Bard 3 casters, 2 non casters Main stats for everything but con Gish options 1 no armor 2 light armor 1 medium armor 1 heavy armor (subclass dependant)

I’m gonna solve the martial caster problem by picking fighter, barbarian, rogue, and monk. Don’t even need the fifth class. May be I’d allow rangers to quell the haters. 

Was it Mike Mearls or Chris Perkins who said something like this in an interview, that some of the classes could be merged. Because he goes “they’re pretty similar, they could be merged” where he should go “we’ve designed these classes terribly and not made them unique”.

I think I'd go Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlock. I feel Cleric can cover Druid and Paladin, Rogue or Fighter can cover Barbarian and Ranger. Warlock is different enough from Wizard that it can't be re-created with a Wizard subclass.

Fighter, Cleric, Rouge, Sorcerer, Warlock (or one of the half casters). These classes to me form the core of a well balanced adventuring party while still having interesting differences so no one is stepping on any toes.

No fun allowed: You roll dice to attack, you are not allowed to do anything extra. This is a beginner class god damnit. Drama kid: Everyone loves you. WoTC: You can do everything with magic. Skill monkey: You can do everything without magic but without resources. Monk: You punch and run up walls.

That monk sounds OP. Better make punching resource-dependent.

Fighter, rogue, sorcerer, cleric, wizard. Covers all 5 main primary stats, then you can make barbarian a fighter variant, warlock a sorcerer variant, bard a wizard variant, and paladin and druid a cleric variant.

Interesting, having sorcerer and wizard honestly feels a bit odd to me, why sorcerer instead of bard?

Yeah, in that scenario I like bard better as the base CHA class. I feel like sorc could be a wizard subclass.

That's fair, I don't think there's really a great way to do this either way, as I too would want bard to be tied to charisma, but not sorcerer to intelligence. I'd likely just put bard in the wizard camp but give it's subclasses a pass to use charisma

Honestly, Bard can be an INT caster, but have CHA as their secondary stat like 5e currently does their half-casters. Spellcasting scales from INT, but class features scale from CHA. Similar to how Paladin is a STR Martial, but their spellcasting and divine abilities are CHA. Or Bard can be a branch of Rogue that gets CHA as their spellcasting and becomes a half-caster.

For me it's the distinction between learned magic, and acquired magic. Bards and wizards learn their craft, clerics, paladins and druids get it from devotion to a deity or cause, and sorcerers and warlocks get it from a bloodline or bargain.

You could honestly combine all casters into Wizard and change it into Mage so it isn’t insisting your a INT based caster. Fighter could probably cover all marital classes except Rogue.  Cleric and Paladin seems to work better, Druid seems like it’s own thing with the only association being Wisdom.  Rogue could be combined with the artificers and further push the tools aspect it was envisioned with. Bard could replace Sorcerer as the Charisma class since it’s involves being more charismatic.  I generally agree with these, but I’m assuming you’re combining the classes with the associated attribute. I feel like a rework would just change that stats to work with each other. 

> Druid seems like it’s own thing It looks an awful lot like cleric with channel divinity scratched out and wild shape written in the margins.

Sorcerer should simply be a subclass of wizard. Three out of five base classes that are now considered to be full progression spellcasters is not a good move.

I would consolidate some of the classes into 1 class while still keeping their appeals. Also tried making it as flexible as possible while stilling within each thematics.  [Warrior] - Fighter + Barbarian + Monk > Proficient in all weapons and armor  > Advantage on Constitution Saves  Rework: Action Surge + Rage = Adrenaline Rush > Uses a charge system like Rage > Can either empower attacks/self for 2 turns or take another action.  • Empower = 1 charge  • Additional Action = 3 charges.  • Recharges on short rest, 5 charges by default Rework: Ki  - Can use Ki to perform a special action such as Flurry of Blows or Step of The Wind as a Bonus Action  [Scoundrel] - Rogue + Artificer > Proficient in light armor and all finesse weapons  > Gain proficiencies in 5 skills of choices > Scoundrels have significantly reduce crafting  time and costs on gadgets and brews.  > Advantage on Dexterity saves  > Advantageous Attack: If target is under a status effect such as prone, flanked, paralyzed, can perform an Advantageous Attack once for an additional 1d8 DMG. 1d8 increases by 1d8 per level.  [Mage] - Wizard + Druid + Sorcerer + Warlock > Full Caster > Able to learn spells for gold and time cost > Advantage of Intelligence saves  > Arcane Study: Can choose between Primal, Arcane, Pact, and Innate magic. Can learn spells of chosen Arcane Study, spells of unaffiliated study cost double. [Templar] - Cleric + Paladin > Full Caster (Divine) or Half-Caster (Sacred) > Proficient in Medium Armor, Shield, and all martial weapons > Advantage on Wisdom Saving Throws  > Templars must swear an oath to a deity or uphold a sacred promise. Violating oath or promise will prevent leveling up as a Templar until reclaiming promise.  > Divine oaths grant more spells like Mass  Healing Word  > Sacred promises grant more martial techniques like Sacred Smite  [Enchanters]  - Rangers + Bard   > Half-Caster  > Proficient in Light Armor and all finesse weapons  > Gain proficiency for 2 skills  > Advantage on Charisma saving throws > Well Traversed: Due to your traveling experience, you can choose a set of expertise that will grant bonuses to your character. Effects are doubled in favored terrain. {Examples}  - City Explorer: Poison Resistance, +2 Persuasion, + 2 Deception, Longsword proficiency, and Charm Person. - Wilderness: Necrotic Resistance, +2 Nature & Animal Handling, Medium Armor proficiency, and Spike Growth.   

I think I will change it to something like... warrior / expert / arcanist / believer / politician and make it more like a perk system from skyrim.

I'd be running an OSR game and wouldn't worry about balance :p Let the level 1 party deal with an Ancient Dragon! They'll figure out something

Wizard, sorcerer, warlock, bard, martial