# 6e, how would you sort the classes/sub-classs?



## mellored

Should paladin just a fighter kit?  Or is it a fighter/cleric multi-class?  Or it's own thing?  Is blackguard a paladin?
Is assassin a rogue?  How about ninja?  Is ranger just a wilderness?  Or rogue just a city ranger?
Are sorcerers just a sub-class of wizard?  Are wizard and druids a sub-class of magic user?  Or are druids focused on shapechanging?
Is everything psionic all together, or are there different types?  Is telepathy different from telekinesis?  Is soul knife psionic, or more of a monk thing?
What's the difference between a knight and samurai?  Or are they just different names for fighter?
Where do bards go?


If you had full creative control, how would you sort them?


----------



## TwoSix

-Only 5 classes.  Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Druid.  

-Subclass options would be at 1st, 4th, 7th, etc.  

-1st level subclass options would often have major mechanical implications (like a Sorcerer subclass for Wizard might have spell points and use Charisma instead of Intelligence).

-Subclass wouldn't be fixed.  You could take the 1st level ability of subclass A at level 1, and then an option for subclass B at level 4.  Higher level subclass options would generally require that the lower level features be taken, but other options would exist.

-Most of the other classic classes would be single class subclasses or multiclass combinations.  Paladin would have Fighter and Cleric options, Sorcerer would be a Wizard subclass, Ranger would have options for Fighter, Rogue, and Druid.


----------



## mellored

> -Only 5 classes. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Druid.



What makes the druid different?



TwoSix said:


> -Subclass options would be at 1st, 4th, 7th, etc.
> 
> -1st level subclass options would often have major mechanical implications (like a Sorcerer subclass for Wizard might have spell points and use Charisma instead of Intelligence).
> 
> -Subclass wouldn't be fixed.  You could take the 1st level ability of subclass A at level 1, and then an option for subclass B at level 4.  Higher level subclass options would generally require that the lower level features be taken, but other options would exist.



So combining sub-class and feats?


----------



## Sacrosanct

The core four: fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric. 

I’d take 5e’s lead on feats with how they are packages, but I’d take it one step further and make them even more encompassing packages, and packages that have some sort of level scaling. 

For example, let’s say you want an Eldritch Knight. You choose a fighter, and at level 3 (the level normally where a subclass is granted), you choose a feat package of Arcane Magic. That feat starts by granting a couple cantrips and a first level spell. At every level gained, you gain an additional spell slot. At 5th level, you get a 2nd level spell. At 7th level you get  third level, etc. 

Or you choose the knight feat package and get bonuses to mounted combat, abilities tied around leadership and inspiration, and abilities to help defend allies. All of which also have level scaling abilities. 

Note, that is just for illustrative purpose, not that that’s how I’d actually do it.  With more encompassing feat packages, there would be fewer of them, and in return you’d have more baked in core class features and no subclasses.

*edit. I’d also have prerequisites for the feat packages. For example, in order to have the knight package, you’d have to be either a fighter or cleric class. Or to choose arcane magic, you’d need at least a 14 INT.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist

Something I'd want if for the races to have a greater impact on the character.  I'd give each race (or subrace) a Martial, Arcane, and Divine focus, that would interact with their class powers.

Things like, Dwarves would have Axes (Martial), Stone (Arcane), (i don't know for divine).
A Dwarven Warrior would get a damage bonus with Axes.
A Dwarven Rogue might get to Finesse with light Axes.
Spells with the [Stone] tag would be lower level for wizards.  Flesh to Stone is 6th level normally, but for a Dwarven Wizard it's only 5th.
A Dwarven Sorcerer might instead get a Metamagic option that turns Energy Damage into Bashing Damage, as you evoke Stones from the elemental plane of earth instead of Fire or Ice.

I personally like the class system in 5e, though personally I'd tune Subclasses to be a larger part of the overall character.  All classes starting their subclass at the same level (2nd probably), and all subclasses having more effect (half OR MORE of your class features being either wholly from or modified by your subclass)
Possibly arranged so that ALL classes get Subclass features at the same levels, SUCH THAT we could make subclasses that apply to more than one class.  (Similar to the way the Archetypes work in Starfinder)
Like, if we wanted a Lycanthrope Hunter, for a Lycanthrope heavy campaign, we could create a subclass that worked with most or all classes with as little finagling and additional complications as possible.


----------



## mellored

Sacrosanct said:


> For example, let’s say you want an Eldritch Knight. You choose a fighter, and at level 3 (the level normally where a subclass is granted), you choose a feat package of Arcane Magic.



So..
Combining feats and sub-classes?


----------



## mellored

TiwazTyrsfist said:


> I personally like the class system in 5e, though personally I'd tune Subclasses to be a larger part of the overall character.  All classes starting their subclass at the same level (2nd probably), and all subclasses having more effect (half OR MORE of your class features being either wholly from or modified by your subclass)
> Possibly arranged so that ALL classes get Subclass features at the same levels, SUCH THAT we could make subclasses that apply to more than one class.  (Similar to the way the Archetypes work in Starfinder)
> Like, if we wanted a Lycanthrope Hunter, for a Lycanthrope heavy campaign, we could create a subclass that worked with most or all classes with as little finagling and additional complications as possible.



Sounds like feats and sub-classes combine.

I'm beginning to sensing a theme...


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I would make 3 stats strictly offensive stats and 3 stats strictly defensive, and every class would focus on one offensive stat and one defensive stat (although there are benefits for upping the other defensive stats), so something like:

fighter:  str/con (some sort of benefit for the longer fights go)
mystic/psychic:  int/con (most abilities come from astral projection, where the more con you have, the longer you can project)
channeler:  cha/con (channeler of primal spirits=druid)
combat artiste (I am still working on a name):  str/dex (includes martial artists and barbarians, I am picturing the martial version of the 5e warlock with "styles" instead of invocations)
assassin:  int/dex (studies enemy and uses int for damage, includes hunter rangers and rogues)
psychological warfare (still working on a name):  cha/dex (magic subclass is bard, nonmagic subclass is warlord)
champion:  str/wis (sees the world as it is and gets boons, based on "champion of what":  champion of celestials=paladin, champion of fiends=hellblade, champion of fey=feyblade, champion of primal spirits=totem barbarian, etc.)
wizard:  int/wis (all buffs will be based on wisdom)
summoner:  cha/wis (most spells will be bonus action spells, so the summoner uses a bonus action to power up the pet, and the summoner's action to make the pet attack; ditto buffs are wisdom)

Of course all that might change by tomorrow, but this is what amuses me now.


----------



## Eubani

I would stop other classes stealing the Fighter's stuff, allow them to do more than hp damage when they attack and separate the advanced/simple fighter into separate classes. Give some other classes simple set ups as well so Fighter does not carry the burden solely. Find a way to depower dex. Add Warlord and direct those that complain about such things to the fact the past editions they want already exist.


----------



## Lanefan

Main class
 - - subclass

Fighter
 - - Ranger
 - - Knight
 - - Paladin (LG,CG,LE,CE versions)
 - - Swashbuckler (could include Archer)
 - - Berserker (replaces Barbarian, which becomes a race instead)
Cleric
 - - Druid (divine casters, shapeshift comes later)
 - - Nature Cleric (covers Shaman, Witch, etc.)
 - - War Cleric
Wizard
 - - Illusionist
 - - Necromancer
 - - Sorcerer (different casting mechanics)
Rogue (or Thief)
 - - Assassin
 - - Bard (rogue with musical powers)
 - - Monk
Psionicist

Multi-classing possible between certain classes only, and not easy.  Also, multi-classing on a 2e basis rather than additive levels e.g. a 4th-Cleric/4th-Wizard is not an 8th-level character but about equal to a 5th.

Lanefan


----------



## Blue

Okay ... I love 5e, so I'm going to suggest a very NOT 5e system - because if it was a 5e system Id rather just stay with / expand 5e.

But still keep it recognizable D&D.  Hmm.

I'd love to see few classes/subclasses, but more mixing and matching between them without removing primary focus - a bit like subclasses do now where they add a theme to an existing class, vs. multiclassing that stop advancement in one class to add from another class.

Making this up as I go along, say you had Casters, Tanks, Skill-monkeys (includes Faces), Snipers, Skirmishers and Pet Owners.  Snipers is the horrible name I just came up with for ranged combatants - both a classic archer and a EB warlock would fit in it.  Skirmishers are great at moving, and likely have some sort of attack that goes with it, like sneak attack.  Pet Owners are beastmasters, necromancers, summoning casters, and their friends based on what you flavor it with.

(Side note written when I got to the end:  I've fallen into a trap.  D&D classes for the last few editions are so focused mechanically around "everyone is good at combat" that my classes all focused on that to varying degrees, with Skirmisher and Sniper as least descriptive.)

Casters will need to be divvied up more, haven't thought about how.  Perhaps by what you flavor them with.  So a Tank / Caster would have protection and melee boosting spells, maybe some touch based ones.

A classic Wizard would be a Caster with some Skill-Monkey.  A traditional D&D cleric would be Caster with Tank bits for the weapons and armor.  Rogues could be Skill Monkey with Skirmisher or vice Versa.  Bards would be Skill-monkey Casters.  Rangers type archers are skill-monkey snipers.  Etc.  But you could have other combos.  Want a Tank/Skill-monkey?  Skirmisher Caster?

So each class is both a framework, and the same primary features but probably with slower acquisition and less secondary features as a subclass.  So a caster is low HPs, no armor, simple weapons, full casting, and nifty casting boost features.  Adding fighter as a subclass to it will add some HPs and weapon/armor, and some of the main fighter boosts.

Now, before I started writing I was thinking the Paladin was Fighter with a Cleric subclass, but then I lose Cleric as a main class because really not all divine casters need to be heavily armored and proficient with a mace.  (I'm old-school.)  So maybe what we need is some additional sub-classes that anyone can take.  Or better yet (see, I'm coming up with this as I write it), an additional axis of flavoring and thematic components that everyone takes, much like the Warlock chooses a patron.

So "Divine" would be one of those.  Or maybe various domains?  That might be too granular, but on the other hand it might work well for your Pet Owner / Skirmisher of the Goddess of Hunting.

Eh, I've tossed a bunch of half-formed thoughts at the wall, let's see what's worth discussing.


----------



## TwoSix

mellored said:


> What makes the druid different?



I'm strongly influenced by 4e cosmology, so I see druidic magic being distinct from both divine and arcane.  Druidic magic also has fairly limited overlap with both in terms of spell effects.  Making it a strong base archetype would allow for further differentiation.



mellored said:


> So combining sub-class and feats?



Essentially.  Ideally, a compromise between 5e's fairly closed system and 4e and PF's fungibility.


----------



## mellored

I should put up my own idea. Not sure if this would work out well, but...
Fully embrace muli-classing.

*All classes are short. Only as many levels as they need to be.
**Clerics/Wizards have 9 levels, one for each spell level.
**Barbarian might be 3 levels.
**Jester might only be 1 level.
**Fighters can be taken as many times as you want. Though each time only adds damage and HP.

*A few "core" classes (fighter, thief, cleric, wizard) are open to anyone. The rest have minor story prerequisites.
**Warlocks need to make an actual deal, and need to serve to gain more warlock levels.
**Pirates need a ship.
**Stuff like dragonmarks and neverwinter guard too.
(You can get some prerequisites via backgrounds).

*Can't take the same class 2 times in a row. Though you could go cleric/fighter/cleric/fighter.

*Damage/Defense is mostly by character level (like 5e cantrips). Classes mostly provide versatility. So wizard 1/shopkeeper 3/pirate 3/noble 2/trickster 2/sage 5/ninja 3, can still cast a decent magic missile.
**A straight fighter will still do the most damage.

*No level cap. Just keep on adding new classes until you get bored. Though damage scale slows down.


Edit: And yes, this is like a combination between sub-classes and feats.


----------



## Slit518

If you want an idea of what I think 6th edition would look like, it would probably look something similar to this:

https://sites.google.com/site/labandlich/

Now note, I wrote this website in 2011 modifying D&D 3.5 a bit, and I have a version on a PC that I wrote in 2012 that is like a "new edition."  It had sub-races added to base races and everything, kind of like what 5th edition does now.

For character building I would suggest looking at the Races and Classes links.


----------



## mellored

MechaTarrasque said:


> I would make 3 stats strictly offensive stats and 3 stats strictly defensive, and every class would focus on one offensive stat and one defensive stat (although there are benefits for upping the other defensive stats):



I kind of like mind/body/spirit.


----------



## Slit518

mellored said:


> I kind of like mind/body/spirit.




I think Jade Empire had a system that revolved around this.


----------



## Monayuris

Sacrosanct said:


> The core four: fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric.
> 
> I’d take 5e’s lead on feats with how they are packages, but I’d take it one step further and make them even more encompassing packages, and packages that have some sort of level scaling.
> 
> For example, let’s say you want an Eldritch Knight. You choose a fighter, and at level 3 (the level normally where a subclass is granted), you choose a feat package of Arcane Magic. That feat starts by granting a couple cantrips and a first level spell. At every level gained, you gain an additional spell slot. At 5th level, you get a 2nd level spell. At 7th level you get  third level, etc.
> 
> Or you choose the knight feat package and get bonuses to mounted combat, abilities tied around leadership and inspiration, and abilities to help defend allies. All of which also have level scaling abilities.
> 
> Note, that is just for illustrative purpose, not that that’s how I’d actually do it.  With more encompassing feat packages, there would be fewer of them, and in return you’d have more baked in core class features and no subclasses.
> 
> *edit. I’d also have prerequisites for the feat packages. For example, in order to have the knight package, you’d have to be either a fighter or cleric class. Or to choose arcane magic, you’d need at least a 14 INT.




I actually like this.

I'd like to see a Ranger sub-class as just a package of abilities that 'plugs into' the fighter class. Same with Barbarian or Paladin. Wizards can encompass sorcerers, warlocks, artificers... clerics: Druids, Witches... Rogue: Thief, Acrobat, Assassin, etc...

The base class can manage most of the 'raw' power and the package would just provide thematic tweaks that should hit each of the three pillars.

This could be expanded to an 'NPC package' option that provides a streamlined and simplified way of making NPCs that sit within the same Class framework that would be easy for a DM to use. For example, a Berserker will just be a Fighter with an 'NPC' Berserker package (with maybe a simple rage mechanic)  or a NPC Spellcaster would be a Wizard with an 'NPC' Cult Leader package (which would include a list of prepared spells already defined).

You wouldn't need stat-blocks for every type of NPC.. Making NPC's would be simple, since you just need to choose their class and level and then create or pick a  'package'. The core classes will have the definitive abilities of the class already defined, the packages just offer the unique elements of the NPC.


----------



## steeldragons

I hear the moans and groans now..."You posted a thread about class structure with Steeldragons in earshot?! Are you MAD, man!?"

I'd probably go something like the following, as I used for my own homebrew system...

Base Class: Broadest theme/archetype of a certain fantasy trope, focus on the specific features/mechanics upon which the class relies. A character's specific flavor is left, nearly entirely, to the player or other elements of character creation (such as themes/backgrounds, accumulated skills, feats, etc...) 
--Less Broad Thematic subclass with slight mechanic difference, e.g.: a subclass that relies on a specialty of a certain feature/facet of the base class.
--More narrow thematic subclass with heavier mechanic differences.
--Most narrow thematic subclass, probably including some alignment or other restriction, with the heaviest mechanic differences from the base, including the use of magic and/or other specific feature from a different base class.

For example:
Fighter: broadest possible "warrior" archetype.
--Knight - a specific flavor/theme of warrior, honing in on the character's expertise and background flavor.
--Barbarian - a specific flavor/theme of warrior, including assumptions of culture [if not race], hones in on a particular fighting style with a unique mechanic ("Battle Raging/Berserking") other warriors don't have access to.
--Martial Adept - a very specific "martial arts" disciple kind of warrior, particular martial arts "style" allows for above/beyond attack damage and effects and supernatural abilities particular to the Adept, heavily oriented toward Dexterity features -likely taken from the Thief/Rogue class, the discipline and honor required of the flavor/theme of the archetype requires a dedication to a Lawful alignment.

OR...there's always this...


----------



## Blue

MechaTarrasque said:


> I would make 3 stats strictly offensive stats and 3 stats strictly defensive, and every class would focus on one offensive stat and one defensive stat (although there are benefits for upping the other defensive stats), so something like:
> 
> fighter:  str/con (some sort of benefit for the longer fights go)
> mystic/psychic:  int/con (most abilities come from astral projection, where the more con you have, the longer you can project)
> channeler:  cha/con (channeler of primal spirits=druid)
> combat artiste (I am still working on a name):  str/dex (includes martial artists and barbarians, I am picturing the martial version of the 5e warlock with "styles" instead of invocations)
> assassin:  int/dex (studies enemy and uses int for damage, includes hunter rangers and rogues)
> psychological warfare (still working on a name):  cha/dex (magic subclass is bard, nonmagic subclass is warlord)
> champion:  str/wis (sees the world as it is and gets boons, based on "champion of what":  champion of celestials=paladin, champion of fiends=hellblade, champion of fey=feyblade, champion of primal spirits=totem barbarian, etc.)
> wizard:  int/wis (all buffs will be based on wisdom)
> summoner:  cha/wis (most spells will be bonus action spells, so the summoner uses a bonus action to power up the pet, and the summoner's action to make the pet attack; ditto buffs are wisdom)
> 
> Of course all that might change by tomorrow, but this is what amuses me now.




Just to take this further, why have multiple offensive stats that do the same thing?  If you are going to advance one offensive stats, the other offensive stats seem to be potential dump stats.

Perhaps two - one for accuracy and one for force.  Give each character a proficient use of them (casting, weapons, maybe break up further) and it's the same set of ability scores no matter what.


----------



## Blue

Ooh, got a different one to suggest.

Characters have three totally separate classes, each with their own XP and level.  These three correspond to the different pillars of D&D.

So you would have a "combat" class, a "exploration" (or "discovery" as Mike Mearls says he now likes to call it) class and a "social interaction" class.  They each have their own feats that you can only take with levels from those classes.  All classes have choice of two primary ability scores, to allow better overlap between your classes.  (Ability score balancing would need to occur.)  So yes, this means that if you picked DEX for your fighter, you could use DEX for all weapons you are proficient with, not just finesse weapons.

Social Interaction classes would be thinks like Face, Thug, Spy, Grifter, Performer, Leader, Enchanter.

Discovery classes would be something like Wilderness Guide, Seer, Sneak, Shapechanger, Fortuneteller and Sage.

Combat classes would be greatly stripped down from what we have, but since 80%+ of class rules are combat related it gives you an idea.

To give an example of how existing class would get split up, Druidic base wild shape would go to a Discovery class.  Moon Druid wild shape would likely be a whole combat class.

XP would be given out per scene/montage, and would be individualized.  Additional XP would be given out for milestones/story awards and you can divide that as you like between all three.  Or it adds to all three automatically, that might be better.

As a matter of fact, I'd strongly suggest that PCs don't start the same in all three of their pillars - some could be stronger in Social Interaction, or Combat, or Discovery.  The XP charts make it easy to catch up to the same level as everyone else.

Inspiration for this was a recent article had me thinking about Mechwarrior, the Battletech RPG I played back in the 90s.  All of your "pilot a mech" skills came from the same bucket as everything else.  Two of us made well rounded characters who would be able to survive outside a mech, but weren't experts at anything.  I was actually bad in the mech battle part since I had okay skills but owned a tiny 20 tonner.  Others barely made any allowance for life outside of a mech and were really good at that.  And I wished that you didn't have to give up one to get the other.


----------



## Bawylie

3 bass classes that cover one or more traditional combat roles. 
1 that uses tools and training (tank or dps options in the base class)
1 that receives powers from an otherworldly patron, force, etc. (healer or support options baked into the base class).
1 that manipulates the world’s elements through study and experimentation (dps and support options baked into the base class). 

Subclasses would be kits geared toward non-combat play. Sort of narratively focused on the world and/or toward a specific aspect of exploration/interaction. Probably something like 2 or 3 subclasses over 20 levels. In scope I’m thinking they’re like backgrounds +1. 


-Brad

Edit to add: the action “attack” will be renamed “fight.” And probably a few more revisions and renamings to encompass a broader scope of activity in any particular action.


----------



## 77IM

I think I'd keep it pretty similar to how it is now, actually. I'd just clean up some of the classes that had weak subclass options, like Fighter, Ranger, and Sorcerer. Actually, any class where there aren't 3-4 obvious subclasses is probably narratively weak. And certain popular concepts have been left on the cutting room floor (witch, shaman, warlord). For example, if Fighter got more from its subclass it could cover a lot more narrative ground; I find it somewhat ironic how the designers lamented the difficulty of designing the Fighter for precisely their narrative breadth, and then made the mistake of baking all the power into the superclass. They did a better job with the Druid and could use it to represent things like the shaman (which they kind of did -- Xanathar's "Circle of the Shepherd" is somewhat like the 4e Shaman). The one that really got the shaft, I think, is Sorcerers. There are a lot of popular characters these days that would be described as Sorcerers; the fact that it's hard to build Elsa using just the PHB is a fail. (Yes, you can reflavor the silver draconic sorcerer, but no little girl wants to hear that.) There should be at least as many Sorcerous Origins as there are Arcane Traditions.

The only possible exception is I'd like to see an arcane half-caster, half-warrior as a full class. That's a popular enough thing in genre fiction to warrant its own core class. I don't think Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger are cutting the mustard. The biggest problem with the warrior-mage concept is that it's hard to come up with a good name for it other than awkward-sounding combinations like "warrior-mage." ("Adept" is not an awful name for this class, coming from a Shadowrun background, but it means nothing to people in general.) Subclasses might included spellblade, gish, something that does what a 4e swordmage did (but not called "swordmage" because it's too easily confused with spellblade), and something more roguish (maybe shadowdancer?). If this is starting to sound a little like a jack-of-all-trades with substantial overlap with Bard, I'm OK with that. I think the classes represent genre archetypes first and foremost, and in today's genre fiction, the warrior-mage is at least as popular as the bard. But the two are distinct enough that I wouldn't try to make one a subclass of the other.


----------



## Horwath

3 classes.
10 levels of spells. 10th level at 19th level.
Certain warrior/rogue subclasses would be half casters(5 levels of spells max). 
All subclasses begin at 1st level with special features.


Warrior(knight, avenger, beserker, warden, beastmaster, battlemaster, champion, spirit warrior)

Rogue(assassin, thief, scout, bard, ninja, hunter,)

Mage(white mage-priest, green mage-druid, black mage-necromancer, elementalist, summoner, battle mage, blade singer).

and somewhat 2e multiclassing with dual levels every 3 levels, starting on 5th.


character levelclass 1class 211213242533647485596106117712813814991510161017111118121912201313


----------



## Charlaquin

Class would be the broadest expression of the archetype, with subclass being more specific expressions of the concept. In effect, Class becomes something akin to Power Sources or Roles in 4e, while subclasses would be closer to what we tend to think of as classes. I'd probably start with the following in the PHB, and expand from there:

Fighter
- Barbarian
- Paladin
- Ranger

Mage
- Sorcerer
- Warlock
- Wizard

Mystic
- Cleric
- Druid
- Monk

Rogue
- Assassin
- Bard
- Thief

Class would determine your resource game, and subclass would determine your specific abilities within that framework. Fighters use mostly at-will abilities - if you can use a special fighting maneuver once, you can use it again, no arbitrary restrictions on how many times you can rage. But some might have drawbacks or costs, like Barbarians becoming exhausted after raging, or Paladins having various combat stances and can only be in one stance at a time. Mages use spells that recover on a daily or long rest basis - traditional Vancian faire. Wizards have their spellbooks and spell memorization, sorcerers always have access to all their known spells and treat spell slots like a mana pool, etc. Mystics have magical abilities that recover on an encounter or short rest basis - they need only a brief opportunity to tap into their source of mystical power. Clerics prey to their deities, monks meditate and refresh the flow of Ki, etc. Rogues have highly specialized abilities, which like Fighter powers are not restricted by limited resources, but are generally situational in use. Assassins can do a ton of damage when they catch an enemy by surprise, bards can charm and beguile when they have the opportunity to perform, etc.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist

One Character class - PC.
Each level, you get an increasing number of "Class Feature Points" which you spend to buy class features.
All features are available (though some cost enough points to stop you buying them until you get to a high enough level).  Some features are cheaper if you buy other features first.

Totally modular design.
1st level spells - 3 pts
Sneak attack - N+1pts (1pt for 1d6, +2pts (3 total) for 2d6, +3 pts (6 total) for 3d6, and so on)
Bardic music starting package - 2 pts.
Additional uses of bardic music (more times per day) - 2 pts. for 1/day
Addition Bardic Music Options - priced individually.
9th level spells - IDK 180 pts but -10 pts for each spell level pack you have (so if you have 1-8 already it's only 100 pts)


----------



## CapnZapp

The strength of Dungeons & Dragons is how they have successfully resisted the lure to streamline and rationalize the game.

Having idiosyncratic and unique classes cluttered with uncategorizible features is wonderful.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Lanefan

77IM said:


> The only possible exception is I'd like to see an arcane half-caster, half-warrior as a full class. That's a popular enough thing in genre fiction to warrant its own core class. I don't think Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger are cutting the mustard. The biggest problem with the warrior-mage concept is that it's hard to come up with a good name for it other than awkward-sounding combinations like "warrior-mage." ("Adept" is not an awful name for this class, coming from a Shadowrun background, but it means nothing to people in general.) Subclasses might included spellblade, gish, something that does what a 4e swordmage did (but not called "swordmage" because it's too easily confused with spellblade), and something more roguish (maybe shadowdancer?). If this is starting to sound a little like a jack-of-all-trades with substantial overlap with Bard, I'm OK with that.



This is something I never want to see: a jack-of-all-trades class.

Why?

Because a true jack-of-all-trades doesn't need a party as he-she can do everything on his-her own.

The most compelling game-mechanical (and narrative, if the characters have half a clue) reason for an adventuring party to form, gain members, and stay together is that each character (usually) brings strengths that cover off weaknesses of the others.  The characters thus come to rely on each other, and the whole becomes a bit more than the sum of the parts.

J-o-a-T characters blow this up because, if designed and-or built properly, they have no weaknesses.  And that is bad. (and this is also a primary reason why I really don't care much for multi-classing)

Lanefan


----------



## Tallifer

I truly enjoyed the 4th Edition grid: Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine, Psionic paired with Striker, Defender (Tank), Support and Utility/Control. Countless classes and subclasses were never a problem for me in that system, because their function always made sense.

As for certain iconic characters or backgrounds, fluff could always be refluffed.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist

Tallifer said:


> I truly enjoyed the 4th Edition grid: Martial, Arcane, Primal, Divine, Psionic paired with Striker, Defender (Tank), Support and Utility/Control. Countless classes and subclasses were never a problem for me in that system, because their function always made sense.
> 
> As for certain iconic characters or backgrounds, fluff could always be refluffed.




I guess I'd say, the reason I personally didn't like the Power/Role grid in 4e, was because classes were too locked in to their role.

It was slightly too much of an MMO design choice, and while I love MMOs and video games in general, one of the reasons I play Tabletop RPGs is that they are more open.  I like being able to use my abilities in unexpected ways, I like being able to take a character whose class would normally fall into one role, and alter that character enough (within the written rules of the game without house rules) to fill a different niche.

You take a 3.X Fighter, people would say "Defender role".
But you give em a Pole Arm, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Whirlwind attack, other stuff, you end up with a very good Area Controller.
Build a primary caster with a focus on Summons and Buffs, suddenly the d4 hit die character is essentially the tank because their summons fill the defender role.

So, I wouldn't want a Grid like that again.


HOWEVER, (I'm gonna reference Starfinder again) What about a more aggressive version of the Theme system from Star Finder?  Themes grant a stat bonus, and like 4 powers as you level up.  
What if you made a system where the roles were applied like themes, granting appropriate bonuses.
Wizard with a Control/Utility theme would be essentially the same as 3.5 wizard or 5e wizard
Fighter with Defender would be essentially the same as a 3.5 Fighter or 5e Champion Fighter
Wizard with Defender would get fewer spells, but their Mage Armor spell would get progressively stronger and they'd get more HP.
Fighter with Striker would get less HP and possibly give up heavy armor, but get high burst dmg attacks.
Cleric Utility vs Cleric Defender would basically be 5e Life Cleric vs War Cleric.


Side note: Defenders should have a way to make it Desirable or Advantageous to enemies to focus on them, they should NOT have powers that say "Target may ONLY attack you for x duration".


----------



## Coroc

If 6e would need a revamp of classes i would make it more modular to be exactly as downward compatible as 5e. If you look closely 5e got it all, you do not need most multiclasses because they are depicted by a subclass (e.g. 2e, 3e Fighter /Mage  or Basic D&D Elf character class = Eldritch Knight)
You cannot get more perfect than this!


----------



## delericho

mellored said:


> If you had full creative control, how would you sort them?




I would include all the classes that appear in a PHB(1) for any edition as classes - so all the 5e classes plus the Warlord (yes, I know...), the Assassin, and some sort of Mageblade class (for the BECMI Elf).

I'd leave the subclasses more or less as-is, except where the above classes make them redundant, though I'd probably take a good hard look at whether we _really_ need 8 Wizard subclasses in the PHB, or whether we can free up some of that space to give more options to other classes.

And, to be completely honest, I think I'd scrap multiclassing.

(Oh, and also: I would curtail the level range in the core rulebooks, _certainly_ to level 15 and would strongly consider level 10. Better to cover a smaller set of levels really well than to try to cover too much and fail to support the top levels properly. IMO, of course.  )


----------



## TwoSix

Coroc said:


> If 6e would need a revamp of classes i would make it more modular to be exactly as downward compatible as 5e. If you look closely 5e got it all, you do not need most multiclasses because they are depicted by a subclass (e.g. 2e, 3e Fighter /Mage  or Basic D&D Elf character class = Eldritch Knight)
> You cannot get more perfect than this!



It's weird, but I tend to look at it from the totally opposite direction.  5e/3e style multiclassing is actually a pretty great system, why take up design space making subclasses that do a subpar job emulating it when you could make subclasses that synergize with it?  Why not an EK subclass that scales based on the number of wizard levels you have?


----------



## Coroc

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] well do a wizard  then and give him armor and weapon skills like desired via feats. where is the Problem? He will be as powerful as a Standard wizard maybe a Little less, but with added versatility in martial Terms. You can be as creative in 5e as in 3e. But 5 e is easier to do at the table whereas 3e is better suited to a Computer game. I would have loved though, if they had stayed with the 3 e saving throw System (only 3)


----------



## TwoSix

Coroc said:


> [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] well do a wizard  then and give him armor and weapon skills like desired via feats. where is the Problem? He will be as powerful as a Standard wizard maybe a Little less, but with added versatility in martial Terms. You can be as creative in 5e as in 3e. But 5 e is easier to do at the table whereas 3e is better suited to a Computer game. I would have loved though, if they had stayed with the 3 e saving throw System (only 3)



It isn't a problem; the thread topic is simply how could class and subclass utility be improved in a hypothetical 6e.  I simply think putting multiclassing into the base system would be superior to the current method for my desires (which are to see more customization options enabled on a per-level basis).


----------



## Blue

To riff off my own idea, a bolt-on rough way to do this in 5e that probably wouldn't actually work in practice, but gives the idea:

In 5e, take Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue as your only classes.

Add in subclasses for Barbarian, Paladin, Druid, Bard, etc. off of those classes.

Apply "gestalt style" multiclassing rules, but changed where you get one class at full every level and another class that advances only at half levels and without a subclass.  Keep casting (known and slots) separate.

Throw bigger challenges without upping XP to even out everyone being tougher.


----------



## g4m3kn1ght

The current system is mostly okay, the biggest problem being that two players playing the same class don't always feel unique. There should be some kind of paragon path/prestige class options for the upper level characters (10+). I would remove the bard in favor a more obvious swordmage, and make bardic inspiration and its other mechanics a subclass option for another class or feat/background. Would standardize levels the classes receive features to make homebrewing and multiclassing a little easier.  Race and background could have some specific feats or features you gain as you level to allow for more uniquely built character (i.e. a fighter that is dwarven smith versus a fighter that is a elven minstrel would have some mechanical uniqueness between eachother). Also, incorporate something like the down time activity system from Adventures in Middle Earth from Cubicle 7. Basically. you can take feats that you can choose to grow between adventures.

Finally, I would allow caster class to have an extra option for what their caster stat is (i.e. Wizards, Sorcerers and Warlocks can use INT or CHA, Rangers and Druids WIS or INT, Clerics and Paladins use WIS or CHA).


----------



## Blue

Okay, how's this for sticking closer to 5e then some of my other ideas:

Keep standard class/level type of setup.  However, classes don't have to be 20 levels.

Starting characters are 3rd level or 5th or whatever I say below needs to work.  (Side benefit - do way with fractional CR.)

Races get converted to (short) classes.  It is required to have at least one level of a race at start, but you can advance more, including at later points.  This allows things like giants and other "+ECL" races (to use 3.x terminology) - races that are more powerful then the "base" races.  A 1st level giant might be a teen, and still medium sized.  Etc.

Possibly put a "minimum level investment" for some races.  A minitaur might require at least 3 levels to be a base minotaur, a storm giant might require more (and so is only available when starting at a higher level).  Maybe most races expect 2 (and have teen/child 1), while a weak race like kobold or goblin would have a minimum of 1.

Number of levels for racial classes varies based on their upside - what does a paragon member of your race without class look like?  Goblin might be a 3 level racial class while most only have 1 level, a fire giant might be a 12 level class with a minimum that's not lagging too far.  Dragon would be a 20 level class since they have lots of room to grow.

Will have to add some ability to add to casting classes (as opposed to just casting) so as not to kill casters who would fall too far behind in max spell level known.  For example High Elf might be a casting class, with it's own short spell list but it explicitly counts as Wizard levels for spells known if you are mixing.

Potentially also add in background classes.  So if starting is 5th level, level 5 would be a real adventuring class, but the first few levels would be racial and background classes.  Not sure if I like any of that.


----------



## dave2008

A lot of good ideas, but I think you could implement these changes without a 6e.  I could see simplified (4 core) classes with revised feats implemented in a 5e setting.


----------



## 77IM

Lanefan said:


> This is something I never want to see: a jack-of-all-trades class.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because a true jack-of-all-trades doesn't need a party as he-she can do everything on his-her own.
> 
> The most compelling game-mechanical (and narrative, if the characters have half a clue) reason for an adventuring party to form, gain members, and stay together is that each character (usually) brings strengths that cover off weaknesses of the others.  The characters thus come to rely on each other, and the whole becomes a bit more than the sum of the parts.
> 
> J-o-a-T characters blow this up because, if designed and-or built properly, they have no weaknesses.  And that is bad. (and this is also a primary reason why I really don't care much for multi-classing)
> 
> Lanefan




I get what you are saying because I used to feel the same way. But evidence points to this stance being wrong.

The most compelling game-mechanical and narrative reason to form an adventuring party is _strength in numbers_.
Genre fiction is full of parties in which one or more members are jacks-of-all-trades, yet they still belong to an adventuring party.
D&D already has several classes which are easy to build into jacks-of-all-trades, and the system doesn't collapse into one-person adventuring parties.
I've played other RPGs where all characters are expected to be equally capable in every situation (such as many superhero RPGs and many narrative RPGs) and a party still forms.
A properly-designed and properly-built jack-of-all-trades class does have a weakness: they are a master of none.
I think the real problem is niche erosion, as alluded to in my last bullet point. A jack-of-all trades shouldn't be quite as damaging as a fighter, or as skilly as a rouge, or as blasty as a wizard, etc. That's a tricky thing but I think it can be managed in 5e, especially since so many niches have been eroded down to nubs already. The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock can all function very well as jacks-of-all-trades, so adding an arcane half-caster (same basic design as the Paladin and Ranger) should be fine.


----------



## DEFCON 1

I would not change a gosh-darned thing.  Because anything you want you can already do.  It just doesn't get to appear in a book that everybody else uses.

You don't like paladins?  Great.  The Basic Rules already exist to give you a Fighter with an Acolyte background.  You don't like druids that have shapeshifting?  Great.  The PHB already has the Nature domain Cleric with an Outlander background.  You think monks should be a sub-class of the rogue?  Great.  Choose three or four of the monk's main abilities and put them into the leveled features of your own monk subclass of the rogue that you make.  You don't like classes at all?  Great.  Go buy GURPS.


----------



## Thurmas

I would be fine with a 6th Edition in a few years, but I think much of what I would change could be covered in a 5.5 Edition.

To start, include all classes that eventually get included in 5th in the 6th Edition PHB. None of this condensing classes down to 4 groups or anything else. I think what 5th edition did with the classes and subclasses works great. State there will be no new classes in the future. I'm hoping this means that the PHB would include classes that will eventually get released, such as the Warlord or Mystic. All future 6th supplements would add subclasses, but not new classes.

You could include most of the current material, just make it more balanced and desirable.

To that end, standardize when classes get a Subclass, preferably all at level 2 or level 3.

Emphasize the subclasses with abilities that really make the subclass stand out versus other subclasses in the class. This should be a good portion of their power. 

Make an even number of subclasses for each class. PHB could include 3 or 4 subclasses for each class and be fine. None of this 2 for some and 7 or 8 for others.

I like the ASIs in 5th edition. I like Feats also. I think they should be independent of each other. You still gain an ASI every few levels in a class, but it has to be an ASI. You gain feats at set levels also, but it has to be a feat. Choices and options that give flexibility make characters more unique.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Blue said:


> Just to take this further, why have multiple offensive stats that do the same thing?  If you are going to advance one offensive stats, the other offensive stats seem to be potential dump stats.



At least in theory, it should matter whether you are stabbing something or shooting it or casting a spell at it, such that a character with balanced stats will have more options to exploit enemy weaknesses and rarely be caught in a situation where they can't contribute.

Of course, that is somewhat at odds with the idea that each class would only focus on a single offensive stat, which is the core of the idea you were responding to. My own ideas for 6E run along the lines of eliminating redundancy in classes and ability scores, such that Strength is _the_ melee attack stat and Int is _the_ magic attack stat, so everyone is using the same rule-set and classes are just about which type of thing you want to specialize in.


----------



## extralead

Cavalier is about the only class focused on Animal Handling with Folk Hero, Mercenary Veteran, Sailor, and Soldier the only backgrounds that give Vehicle Skills.

No one-singular class or multiclass combination is necessarily-good at both Negotiation (Charisma-linked skills) and Investigation (combination of Intelligence and Wisdom linked skills). 5E makes it so that the duty must be cross-character. I actually prefer this. Have a Negotiator role (e.g., high-Charisma Rogue Arcane Trickster) and an Investigator role (Observant-feat Arcana Cleric, Light Cleric, or similar).

In my version of the game, there'd be two types of spellcaster, a generic counterspeller and a spell sniper.

Thus, I'd like to see more focus on the main ingredients:
1) A melee Fighter with sword and board as well as a hand-to hand defensive-style Monk dodger. Or both, like the Barbarian
2) A Spell-Sniper Arcana Domain Cleric with high-Int/Wis and all of the Int/Wis skills for investigating and seeing through lies
3) A Sorcerer with the ability to do many things, e.g., Divine-Soul or Wild-Magic or a Wizard like the Abjurer but with more party-level effect (similar to the Aura of Warding subclass feature in the Oath of the Ancients Paladin or the many features of the Bard)
4) A focus on Breaking In. This is the classic Rogue with Thieves' Tools. Disarms traps; picks locks; sneaks by enemies unseen/unheard; climbs walls
5) A specialist for the non-arcane tinkering, smithing, and artisaning. The Rock Gnome as a class and/or background instead of just a race. The crafter
6) A negotiator. Plain and simple. Can be deceitful but comes across as a smooth-talker
7) A world traveler. The Ranger, Circle of the Land Druid, or Cavalier but focused on ensuring the party sails smoothly around the globe, in any environment. Fast and efficient. My favorite 5E example of this is the Elk Barbarian Path of the Totem Warrior Aspect of the Beast subclass feature

Remove the Warlock. It's hokey and feels overly-contrived. Not a fan.


----------



## mellored

Hmm... actually, i'm thinking about going back to more 1e style.  But more of a 5e scaling, 3e multi-classing, and 4e attacks structure.

There are 2 different levels.

Character level: This is the primary power scaling.  Like 5e's proficency bonus, you get a scaling bonus to attacks, skills, saves, cantrip damage, etc...
It's based on your total XP.

Class level: Gives you features, skills, spells, etc... scaling the non-damage parts of those abilities.  (firebolt -> burning hands -> fireball -> meteor swarm) or (hide -> hide as a bonus action -> hide in pain sight -> can't be tracked by magic).
All classes have different number of levels, and each level has a different amount of XP.  Depending on how powerful the abilities are.  DM's can adjust this for certain campaigns.


Also, use the 4e style attack roll.  Where the attacker rolls always rolls the d20.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

mellored said:


> Hmm... actually, i'm thinking about going back to more 1e style.  But more of a 5e scaling, 3e multi-classing, and 4e attacks structure.
> 
> There are 2 different levels.
> 
> Character level: This is the primary power scaling.  Like 5e's proficency bonus, you get a scaling bonus to attacks, skills, saves, cantrip damage, etc...
> It's based on your total XP.
> 
> Class level: Gives you features, skills, spells, etc... scaling the non-damage parts of those abilities.  (firebolt -> burning hands -> fireball -> meteor swarm) or (hide -> hide as a bonus action -> hide in pain sight -> can't be tracked by magic).



That sounds just about perfect. I hope they go with that.


----------



## cbwjm

While I do like class/subclass as a way of specialising your character, another way might be a buildable class system similar to what they have for ACKS. The PHB could have some of the basic classes, at the very least the 4 groupings of fighter, priest, rogue, and wizard. They can have additional classes built using the build system and show how they are built later in the book for those players that want to create their own. 

If not that then a more streamlined subclass system so that subclass abilities are gained at the same levels and generic subclasses for at least the 4 base classes are available for anyone to take. This way rather than a fighter picking up champion or eldritch knight they can pick up cleric or wizard which adds on abilities from those classes. We kind of have this now with many subclasses allowing a class to dip into another class via subclass. You could also have background subclasses, barbarian might be a subclass that any class can pick up, it might even be a couple of abilities that can replace abilities in your chosen subclass, similar to how the multiclassing feats in 4e allowed you to replace a class power with a another classes power.

I wrote class and subclass so many times in this post. 

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## Wulffolk

No Classes!
No Levels!
No Hit Points!
No Armor Class!
No Alignment!
No d20!

Well . . . I guess it is no longer D&D without all of that garbage. Those things may be the foundation of the game, but they are also the biggest problem with it. I would be very happy to see D&D evolve beyond many of it's legacy issues.

What I would start with:
Choose Group Concept, then create character.
Choose Race/Gender, roll Abilities
Choose Culture/Background, determine Talents/Gifts/Flaws
Determine Childhood Training
Life Event (shapes personal nature)
Determine Youth Training
Life Event (affects personal demeanor)
Determine Adolescent Training
Life Event (influences goals and methods)
Determine Adult Path
Life Event (the catalyst for adventuring)
Begin Adventure!

Not all people are created equal, rolling Abilities reflects nature.
Playing the character begins with choices made during creation.
Every choice above adds a template overlay to the character.
Races give flavorful features, not stat bonuses.
The end result should be steered in a direction of fitting into the original group concept.
The game would use a unique (but still simple) dice pool system.
Armor would provide protection through a combination of deflecting and absorbing damage.
Weapons would have specific maneuvers and options associated with them (such as a sword being able to slash/thrust/bash/parry to varying degrees based on type, or a shield providing cover as well as being able to block/bash).
There will be more to playing a warrior than simply "I Attack!". Tactics and maneuvers will be important choices.
The rules of Magic use will be determined by the source of the Magic (divine favor, arcane manipulation, raw sorcerous power, Magic borrowed through pacts, psychic powers, power drawn from elements of nature, etc)
Magic is meant to have an impact, and to do things that can't be accomplished through mundane means. Thus when Magic is seen it will be significant, even if it is less common and less frequent.
Characters don't gain character or class levels, they improve their abilities and add more templates. Their power level is determined by their total experience.

And that is the problem, every time I start thinking about what I would change I essentially completely re-write the entire system, and it is no longer D&D any more. Maybe someday a better-written system will find mass appeal and our hobby can grow past the limits of D&D, but I am not holding my breath.

In the meantime, if I must deal with all of the problems associated with D&D, then 5e does a better job than any previous edition. I think that 6e might be done best by simply polishing the rough edges off of 5e after all of the options are covered. If they do that then 6e could potentially become the "evergreen" product line that they could use to sell a long line of stories and adventures.

TLDR - Grumpy old gamer rambles incoherently for far too long about things that will never change. Just ignore.


----------



## 77IM

Wulffolk said:


> No Classes!
> No Levels!
> No Hit Points!
> No Armor Class!
> No Alignment!
> No d20!
> 
> Well . . . I guess it is no longer D&D without all of that garbage. Those things may be the foundation of the game, but they are also the biggest problem with it. I would be very happy to see D&D evolve beyond many of it's legacy issues.




You realize you're describing literally thousands of existing RPG systems, right? For decades, "Classless!" was a major selling point for basically every published RPG other than D&D.

The question that drives me in circles is: has the use of classes helped D&D's popularity and adoption, or hindered it?


----------



## The Crimson Binome

77IM said:


> The question that drives me in circles is: has the use of classes helped D&D's popularity and adoption, or hindered it?



Based on personal observation, class-less systems don't typically exhibit much staying power. The big competitors to D&D have historically been Palladium and White Wolf, both of which used class delineations (much more obvious in the former than in the latter) to keep characters distinct.

My guess is that class-less systems don't provide as much of a hook, for the players to immerse themselves into the world; and the freedom to make anything you want means there's little incentive to make a second character after the first campaign ends. If you play a campaign that takes your paladin from 1-20, you might really want to play another game as a rogue, or as a sorcerer. Being class-based has helped D&D maintain relevance throughout each edition cycle, while providing a convenient and obvious flaw for competitors to break themselves against.


----------



## Guest 6801328

As I've posted elsewhere, I would like to see another dimension added to Race/Class/Background, and that would be "Template"

Classes would be: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric...plus maybe a few others like Warlock, Druid, Bard, Spiritualist

Templates could be overlaid on any class and would have a few iconic abilities.  Templates might include:
 - Paladin
 - Woodsman
 - Barbarian
 - Knight  
 - Shadow..something? (Shadowcrawler?)  Basically the Shadow Monk sub-class, but as a template for any class
 - Lycanthrope
 - Vampire
 - Tomb Raider
 - Archer
 - Alchemist
 - Shapeshifter

So you could play a Rogue Woodsman, or a Hunter Woodsman, etc.  Some of the combinations might seem weird...like Rogue Knight, but hey if you can come up with fluff to explain it more power to you.


----------



## mellored

77IM said:


> You realize you're describing literally thousands of existing RPG systems, right? For decades, "Classless!" was a major selling point for basically every published RPG other than D&D.
> 
> The question that drives me in circles is: has the use of classes helped D&D's popularity and adoption, or hindered it?



For adoption, classes help. Having 30 points to spend on 30 things is 900 options, more than enough to overwhelm new players.

Having a class gives you 10 clean options.  Each one with a partially baked story let's say "I'm a wizard" and everybody knows what to expect.

Though, the ability score system and spell levels vs character level don't help.  No need for 20 Str to give +5, and for level 5 wizard to cast level 3 spells.
It's about as unnecicaray as THAC-0.


----------



## cbwjm

A system like in shadow of the demon lord could be quite cool.

You gain abilities at different levels for your race, novice path, expert path, and master path and the paths can be combined in any combination meaning that you can start as a warrior, pick up wizard at level 3, and then mage knight at level 7. Meanwhile, your friend might be building a similar character but goes with warrior, fighter at level 3, and then mage knight at level 7. You have more magic at you disposal while the they have more combat abilities. Something similar might work well for a potential 6th edition.


----------



## Wulffolk

77IM said:


> You realize you're describing literally thousands of existing RPG systems, right? For decades, "Classless!" was a major selling point for basically every published RPG other than D&D.
> 
> The question that drives me in circles is: has the use of classes helped D&D's popularity and adoption, or hindered it?




There is a reason for that. So many other game systems do so many things so much better than D&D. What they do not have, and have rarely ever even come close to, has been D&D's name recognition and influence. The reason for that is that D&D came first and defined the hobby, thanks to the huge amount of publicity  (usually negative and ignorant) that it received.

My plan to use layered templates is similar to what   [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] is talking about. A character would have the option to improve through free-form unstructured growth, or apply templates of multiple pre-defined aspects, sacrificing customization for the ease of learning from a mentor or organization. Templates would function kind of like Feats that add special class-like features, but usually have some sort of pre-requisite or membership requirement.

And to answer your question, having Classes seems to help keep D&D accessible as an entry point into the hobby. It offers structure that is rarely seen in real life, keeping it feeling more like a game than a fantasy simulator.


----------



## delericho

mellored said:


> For adoption, classes help. Having 30 points to spend on 30 things is 900 options, more than enough to overwhelm new players.
> 
> Having a class gives you 10 clean options.  Each one with a partially baked story let's say "I'm a wizard" and everybody knows what to expect.




This. Though by rights, D&D already as too many options - for most people, somewhere between 5 and 9 distinct options is generally best.


----------



## Aldarc

cbwjm said:


> A system like in shadow of the demon lord could be quite cool.
> 
> You gain abilities at different levels for your race, novice path, expert path, and master path and the paths can be combined in any combination meaning that you can start as a warrior, pick up wizard at level 3, and then mage knight at level 7. Meanwhile, your friend might be building a similar character but goes with warrior, fighter at level 3, and then mage knight at level 7. You have more magic at you disposal while the they have more combat abilities. Something similar might work well for a potential 6th edition.



This was one of my first thoughts as well, but I have also not yet seen SotDL in play yet, so I'm reluctant to say that this optimal. But fas best as I can tell, it does allow for a tremendous degree of character customization.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## steeldragons

So to borrow/carry on from this...



> Base Class: Broadest theme/archetype of a certain fantasy trope, focus on the specific features/mechanics upon which the class relies. A character's specific flavor is left, nearly entirely, to the player or other elements of character creation (such as themes/backgrounds, accumulated skills, feats, etc...)
> --Less Broad Thematic subclass with slight mechanic difference, e.g.: a subclass that relies on a specialty of a certain feature/facet of the base class.
> --More narrow thematic subclass with heavier mechanic differences.
> --Most narrow thematic subclass, probably including some alignment or other restriction, with the heaviest mechanic differences from the base, including the use of magic and/or other specific feature from a different base class.




We get the following D&D Game [presumably all PC] Classes:

*The Warriors
Fighter:* broadest possible/default "warrior" archetype. Use weapons. Hit hard and often. Stand longest.
*--Knight *[or _Cavalier _if you prefer] - a specific flavor/theme of warrior, honing in on the character's expertise and background flavor.
*--Barbarian *- a specific flavor/theme of warrior, including assumptions of culture [if not race], hones in on a particular fighting style with a unique mechanic ("Battle Raging/Berserking") other warriors don't have access to.
*--Martial Adept* - a very specific "martial arts" disciple kind of warrior, particular martial arts "style" allows for above/beyond attack damage and effects and supernatural abilities particular to the Adept, heavily oriented toward Dexterity features -likely taken from the Thief/Rogue class, the discipline and honor required of the flavor/theme of the archetype requires a dedication to a Lawful alignment.

*The Wizards
Mage:* the broadest possible/default "wizard" archetype. Guy/gal who uses Arcane Magic the most. All types. Knows and learns, researches and figures out, seeks out and hunts down spells. Mo' Magic, Mo' bettuh. You're going to have a grimoire as part of your spellcasting/feature -even if you want to fluff the character as innately magical. Fluff it as your notebook, a dream journal, however you want if you don't like actual "spellbook" but it's something you will want to have and guard rigorously to protect the magical secrets, formulae, and epiphanies within. You access are the definitive magic-user of the Arcane Magic spell list.
*--Illusionist:* to go back to the origins of the game and give a lad/lass their due. a specific flavor/theme of wizard, using mind-altering and phantasmal magics from creative to downright horrifying effect. A slate of differing or slightly more narrow features to the Mage's: a save bonus against Illusions & Enchantment effects, cast a spell without notice, etc... You get your own [arcane] spell list that has some overlap with the Mage, but is [at least half] spells only those trained in your special sorcery can master.
*-----SIDE BAR: *_This will be the model class for all other "specialization schools" in the 2e+ style: a couple of individual features + a spell list that includes some from the Arcane List and some specific to your type of magic. Note, I would not bother with all 8 types, but boil them down and condense them into "schools" of casters that are more thematically distinct. I would think, including Illusionists, you should be able to get it down from 8 to 5 at least. _ 
*--Witch*: a specific flavor/theme of a magic-user that is more rooted in "folk-magic," crafting, learning from passed down tradition vs. rigorous academics, and ritual. The witch's unique features include a die roll altering "Hex," work ritual magic above their apparent experience level, and their unique mechanic (a la a Barbarian's Rage) the ability to "Craft" spells into potions, common items, and treats. So you can, however many times per day or prof bonus or Cha. modifier or what have you, you "cast" a spell into a brew and then that creation can be carried around however long until someone eats it or you throw it at, hit with, or splash it on someone. They also learn/accumulate the designs and glyphs to inscribe special talismans as they advance in level to simulate the abilities of other spell-casters (such as being able to Turn Undead). The witch "makes" magic in a variety of forms, more-so than learning/accumulating spells. Spell selection is limited to a combination of the Illusionist's spell list (see above) and the use of Nature Magic Spells (see below, Druid)...might throw in Light armor and a couple of simple weapons other wizards wouldn't have (hand axe, scimitar, etc...)...
*--Psychic*: a most specific and extraordinarily rare [in most worlds] type of "magic" worker that uses the powers of their own mind (and potentially the minds of others) to generate effects that can only be described as "magic"...though psychics (and most wizards) understand it is not. The mechanics are the most different from the base "Mage" because there is no accumulation of "spells" or grimoire, using a Power/Psy-Point system that allows access to any/all Mental Talents/Powers so long as the psychic has points to spend (the industrious player/DM/group can easily extrapolate this system to apply to all magic/spell-casting if they so desired...so an "alternate casting mechanic" is built right into core classes of the game). Telepathy and Telekinesis are the most obvious options to begin with -as all mental powers end up reduced back into one of those two slots. Other "schools of thought" [haha!] -as the Warrior Martial Adept will have styles of martial arts- may [probably should] be introduced later. Linking and protecting the minds of others, overexerting oneself when their PP are low or depleted -doing themselves physical harm in the process. The psychic is the only class that can, literally, kill themselves simply by using their abilities.

*The Rogues
--Thief:* the broadest possible/default Rogue archetype. Are they a burglar, a treasure hunting tomb raider, smuggler, thug/enforcer, street corner conman/flim-flam artist? Who knows? They're a thief. Watch them! Everyone's favorite skill monkey with a bag of tricks up their sleeves -or stashed in their boot, behind their belt buckle, and just about anywhere else. Primarily NON-magical Stealth and skills are the Thief's bread and butter.
*--Acrobat: *a specific flavor/theme of rogue, the much overlooked, long maligned, and poorly -if ever- implemented star of the 80's cartoon, the Acrobat. Slightly different from the Thief in their array of skills, with more focus on speed and agility to accompany the stealth and second-story work. An entertainer's and entertaining combination of the thief's patented "Sneak/stab Attack" and some of the Martial Adept's maneuvers.
*--Swashbuckler:* a more specific flavor/theme of rogue, with certain sailing/mariner skills built-in, speed and flourish, stealth and conniving cunning are the swashbuckler's stock-in-trade. Their signature feature (like a Barbarian's Rage or Witch's Craft) would be -because I rather like the term but am not sure how it would be implemented- "Panache"...some kind of special movement-based combat maneuvers that the Swbkr accumulates (in type and/or frequency) as they gain levels.
*--Ranger:* the most specific and, arguably, powerful iteration of the Rogue. The often imitated, but never duplicated, wilderness "warrior" and defender of the borderlands. Is their role to fight? Shouldn't they be a warrior? Yes and no, respectively. The Ranger, in flavor and practice, is defined moreso by their skill set -which includes fighting ability above/beyond most rogues- than their raw fighting ability, alone. Tracking. Scouting. Hiding. Hunting. Knowledge and expertise of Terrain/Flora/Fauna (whether or not one chooses to incorporate that into some kind of non-magical healing ability...I certainly do). Survival skills. The ranger's position as protector of the borders/wilds means they MUST rely on their skills, a rugged toughness, and no small degree of stealth. And yes, when they come across a patrol of goblins or rabid dragonne, they must be capable (and knowledgeable) enough to defeat it. The ranger would receive more armor and weapon options than other rogues (increasing over experience levels). They would have their "Hunter's Quarry/Marks/Prey/whatever you want to term it", to gain bonuses to knowledge rolls about and inflict better attacks and more damage on creatures they have previously fought/chosen as their recurring enemies (also increasing in number through level). They could get to some sort of "animal empathy" or mundane "animal handling/training" feature other classes do not possess (except maybe the Knight and/or Witch). The herbalism healing/poultices or the Knight's First Aid mechanic would certainly fit.

I have always referred to the last cardinal group of D&D/Fantasy classes as "The Priests," but have never been quite satisfied with it [mostly because I would like to HAVE a "Priest" subclass...I think I may change it and quite like the above title (sorry not sure who it was, right now) of "Mystics"...it's a bit more broad...a bit less tied up in religion...though most of these classes, by definition, are/will be..but for now, we'll go with that...

*The Mystics         
--Cleric: *the broadest possible/default "Mystics" archetype. Uses of armor, weapons, and magic. A tie to a "greater power" beyond what normal people experience or are capable. A force of faith, ideals, divine clarity and enlightenment. And, yes, most player's go to "Healbot" but in reality so much more...so much deeper. The Cleric channels the divine essences of their god, uses their sanctioned weapons, and invokes the heavenly (or hell-spawned) hosts to enact miraculous magical spells, broadly classified -due to the source- as Divine Magic.
*---SIDEBAR:* _All Mystic classes are more stringently devoted to their ideals -or those of their religion/deity- and thus are more involved with, tied to, and cognizant of their Alignments (which must at least closely -if not exactly- match the forces which they serve. Prolonged or egregious deviation from their Alignment will result in any number of ramifications on the Mystic's abilities, from prayers for spells going unanswered, a refusal of energies to channel, to outright excommunication or exile from one's institution, and/or complete disconnect from their "greater power." Atonement to regain both worldly and otherworldly favor is often possible, though never easy, if the character is so inclined._ 
*--Priest:* a specific flavor/theme of the Mystic. No armors and more severely limited weaponry are the trade-offs for an increase in the priest's devoted capacity to channel divine energies and use [more] divine magic than the cleric is typically able. Whether a robed top priest of a temple or a cowled monk/friar/mendicant from a cloistered abbey or lone hermit of your own private shrine, you are the devout servant of the power to which you have devoted your life and training.  
*--Templar:* a specific flavor/theme of the Mystic. The "other side," if you will, of the Cleric's coin from the Priest. More armor? More armor. More weapons? More weapons. More martial training and ability? You get the picture. What does this mean? Well, less magic of course! The Templar channels, but their spell use is severely limited/behind what either a cleric or priest can muster. What the templar DOES have in addition to their martial prowess, a seemingly supernatural ["divine"] health and vigor, and channeling a variety of divine effects, is their personal signature feature, the Sacred Smite, to defend the faithful and mete out divine justice. 
*--Druid:* a specific flavor/theme of the mystic, the druid differs from other mystics in its devotion and protection not of an established religion or specific divinity or pantheon, but of the overarching holiness of Nature and the forces thereof. The sun and moon, the sky and storm, animals (including people) and plants, wood and rock are all connected and intertwined within "the Balance" to which the druid is devoted and dutybound to defend. Druids' magic is Nature Magic, a differing sort from Arcane or -some sages might argue "subset" of- Divine Magic. In that same vein, while the druid is priest of nature and is able to channel energies, these are Natural and not Divine in origin. In short, the Druid Channels Nature to a variety of magical effects including, eventually, shapeshifting themselves into various animal forms. The Druid's extraordinary abilities, so different from their brother-/sister-class, Clerics, are related to their defense of, movement through, and communion with the natural world: beasts, trees, weather, the elements, following the turning of the sun and moon, stars and seasons...the "living" world, which by definition includes death and rebirth. A Druid acknowledges and MUST remain devoted to the dual complimentary nature of the natural world, predator and prey, light and dark, summer and winter, one can not exist without the other and one must never assume supremacy over the other. The Balance is all. To that end, Druids must be -and act the majority of the time toward- Neutral in alignment. That is not to say a druid will -nor should- turn on his/her allies to assist evil...but in a grand, cosmological sense, the concerns of Law or Chaos, Good or Evil, are not the Druid's concerns.    

In the Appendices: Limited prestige-style classes that can be tacked on to other classes.
*-Assassin *[maybe rename as "_Bounty Hunter_"?]: Prereq. None. Available to anyone. Anyone can develop skills to be paid to kill targets. Must have or move into any Evil alignment. This 1 trick pony from the day it was born never even deserved a subclass, imho. I've never understood what Gygax was thinking other than, I suppose, to throw some "interesting" [a.k.a. disruptive] intra-party dynamics into people's games. "Kill" attack instead of a "Backstab" [originally], which always struck me as a way of killing someone anyway. Add in some damage bonus to sneak attacks. Stealth bonus. Disguise ability. Throw in some Poison skill, I suppose.
*-Avenger: *Prereq. X levels of any Warrior or any Rogue. Must have or move into a Chaotic alignment. Attack/Damage bonuses against selected targets. Tracking ability and trap circumvention. Uncanny dodges. Some bonus knowledge areas and practical skills.  
*-Bard: *Prereq. X levels of Druid, any Rogue, or any Mystic of a knowledge-, music/arts-, or nature-related deities. Must have or move into any Neutral Alignment. Music/Vocalization Magical effects, "Channel Nature" based. Inspirational bonuses. Fascination/Enthrall. A very limited amount of spell use/bonus spells from Illusion and Nature Magic lists only.
*-Paladin: *Prereq. X levels of any Warrior or any Mystic of a light/sun-, truth/justice-, or battle/combat-related deities. Must have or move into a Lawful alignment. Lay on hands. Protective Aura. Damage bonuses to undead and fiends. A very limited amount of spell use/bonus spells from Divine Magic lists only.
*-Thaumaturgist: *Prereq. X levels of any Wizard or Mystic. Must have or move into a Good alignment. Gains "Channel" effects. Ability to alter/improve spells. Meta-magic, perhaps? Bonus to rituals (in power or effectiveness). A limited amount of spell use/bonus spells selected from any/all types of Magic the base character does not possess. So a Cleric could learn some Nature or Arcane spells. A Psychic could learn some Illusion or Divine magic. A Witch could pick up some Psychic powers or Arcane spells not found on the Illusion list. etc...

...Whew!...

There. There's your base 6e. Looks REMARKABLY like Steeldragons' homebrewed World of Orea RPG[tm]. Imagine that. Even a bit more complete than my own. lol. 

Naturally, when the "Unearthed Arcana, 6e" comes out you can add in things like an arcane magic-using "Bladecaster" Warrior, "Shaman" and "Ki-channeling 1-5e Monk-style" Mystics, "Beastmaster" Rangers or Barbarians, [Faustian] "Pact" Witches [a.k.a. Warlocks] etc. etc...

Sprinkling in Backgrounds and non-weapon skills liberally for further specialization and granularity of character concept types. 

Yeah...I can definitely play/work with that.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Not that I am one to normally care much about the RW versions of things, but in the RW, berserkers were as much about intimidation as damage, and that amuses me (even more so when you think that one of the main reasons for intimidation is not to have to fight), so maybe move them under the bard....


----------



## Guest 6801328

lowkey13 said:


> Oh, I like this!
> 
> First, no paladins. HA!
> 
> Okay, my main goal would be to make it a little less magic-riffic.
> 
> So, classes and subclasses in BASE. (h/t [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] )  I would add that I would view subclasses as more differentiated than they are now, so my subclasses would be closer to "full" classes. And that only cleric-types and wizard-types get spells. Period.
> 
> Fighter
> - - Ranger (because history)
> - - Knight (Because Cavaliers suck, and they are too close to paladins)
> - - Barbarian (because Conan)
> Cleric
> - - Druid (because history)
> - - Witch (something not as religious-y)
> - - Battle Cleric  (more mace than spell)
> - - Priest (more spell than mace)
> Wizard
> - - Illusionist (the classic)
> - - Warlock (the newbie)
> - - Sorcerer (less bookie)
> Thief
> - - Assassin (history)
> - - Bard (throw those bard-lovers a bone)
> - - Monk (YES!)
> 
> In other words, stay with the core four.
> 
> Then, you can add psionics, alchemists, and other stuff in an expansion.




Did you revert from Rogue to Thief because it's a more appropriate word, or because of history?

Also, in your structure the base classes can be played without a sub-class (it seems).  Do sub-classes just add more abilities, or do they give something up?  If the former (again, old school) what's the incentive to play the base class?


----------



## Elon Tusk

Lanefan said:


> This is something I never want to see: a jack-of-all-trades class.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because a true jack-of-all-trades doesn't need a party as he-she can do everything on his-her own.
> 
> The most compelling game-mechanical (and narrative, if the characters have half a clue) reason for an adventuring party to form, gain members, and stay together is that each character (usually) brings strengths that cover off weaknesses of the others.  The characters thus come to rely on each other, and the whole becomes a bit more than the sum of the parts.
> 
> J-o-a-T characters blow this up because, if designed and-or built properly, they have no weaknesses.  And that is bad. (and this is also a primary reason why I really don't care much for multi-classing)
> 
> Lanefan




I don't care for multi-classing either, but I can see a place for a Jack-of-all-trades. The JOAT is good at almost everything, but not great at any. A lot of tasks need someone who is great at something, making the JOAT need others. The JOAT can fill some holes in a party, but could never do it all and not nearly as well as an expert. 
And all seems to pushing it pretty far; I'd probably back that off to Jack-of-most-trades, leaving room for weaknesses.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sacrosanct

Earlier I mentioned how I would like to see the core four iconic D&D classes, and then make all subclasses as a set of occupational packages (like 5e feats on steroids).  Each of the four core classes gets a class feature on the odd levels, and each occupational package gives you a feature at every even level.

Everyone loves lists.  So here is how I'd probably do it, with the following packages and the prerequisites to select each of these packages (commander is like a warlord, and templar is like a witch hunter, and beserker is like a barbarian (barbarian is a background not a class  ):


Occupation Package	Prerequisite
abjurer	INT 13, magic user
alchemist	INT 13
arcane archer	INT 13, fighter, rogue  
arcane magic	INT 13, fighter, rogue, cleric
artificer	INT 13
assassin	DEX 13, fighter, rogue
bard	CHA 13
beast master	WIS 13
beserker	CON 13
bounty hunter	INT 13
bushi	WIS 13, fighter 
commander	CHA 13
conjurer	INT 13, magic user
defender	CON 13, fighter
divine magic	WIS 13, fighter, rogue, magic user
diviner	INT 13, magic user
dreamwalker	WIS 13
druid	WIS 13, cleric
enchanter	INT 13, magic user
evoker	INT 13, magic user
priest, forge	WIS 13, cleric
gladiator	STR 13, fighter
priest, grave	WIS 13, cleric
illusionist	INT 13, magic user
jester	CHA 13, rogue, magic user
kensei	DEX 13, fighter  
knight	CON 13, fighter
monk, way of the elements	WIS 13, fighter, cleric
monk, way of the fist	DEX 13, fighter, cleric
necromancer	INT 13, magic user, cleric
ninja	DEX 13, fighter, rogue
outlaw	DEX 13, fighter, rogue
paladin   	CHA 13, fighter, cleric
pirate	DEX 13, fighter, rogue
psion	WIS 13
ranger	WIS 13, fighter, rogue
rune magic	INT 13, magic user
samurai	CHA 13, fighter 
scout	DEX 13, fighter, rogue
shaman	WIS 13, cleric
shapeshifter	WIS 13
sorcerer	INT 13, magic user
spirit blade	INT 13
summoner	INT 13, cleric, magic user
swashbuckler	DEX 13, fighter, rogue
templar	INT 13, fighter, cleric
totem warrior	CON 13, fighter
transmuter	INT 13, magic user
undead hunter	WIS 13, fighter, cleric
warlock	CHA 13
witch	WIS 13
priest, knowledge	WIS 13, cleric
priest, life	WIS 13, cleric
priest, light	WIS 13, cleric
priest, tempest	WIS 13, cleric
priest, trickery	DEX 13, cleric
priest, war	STR 13, cleric

*Example*:
If you select a cleric class, you don't automatically get the domains.  You would have to choose them.  So you could choose a cleric class (and get the core spellcasting features), but instead of getting a domain, maybe you choose the bard occupational package.  Essentially you would have the basic spellcasting function of a cleric, _plus _additional abilities around inspiration that the bard occupation brings.  Or you could choose the beserker package and have the core spellcasting of the cleric, but the rage and resistance abilities that a berserker package would give.


----------



## steeldragons

Hmmm...now I'm wondering if Bard becomes a full Mystic class and insert "Shaman" into the "limited prestige-appendix-class must be Neutral slot...open it up to Druids, Clerics of knoweledge-, death-, or nature-based deities, make Spirit summoning/channeling is kinda their [1 trick pony] thing. Very limited spell use/bonus spells in Nature Magic...

Shaman fits almost exactly where the Bard was and then that allows the Bard to go be a full class added in 6e's Unearthed Arcana, with suitable variants attached.

Yeah, I think I like that.


----------



## Slit518

What is 6th edition becomes "micro" transaction like.  Where we have to buy so many comic book sized manuals to get all the rules/flavor we want?

You want to be a Bard?  Buy the Bard pamphlet?

You must unlock the Dwarf pamphlet to become a Dwarf!


----------



## Sacrosanct

Slit518 said:


> What is 6th edition becomes "micro" transaction like.  Where we have to buy so many comic book sized manuals to get all the rules/flavor we want?
> 
> You want to be a Bard?  Buy the Bard pamphlet?
> 
> You must unlock the Dwarf pamphlet to become a Dwarf!




I'm sure [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] already charges his players a paladin fee at every session...


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist

Instead of classes and levels, we have careers and grades.  Each time you have enough XP you can buy a grade in any career (think classes, subclasses, and 3.x prestige classes) you qualify for.
Each time you take a grade, you get an exploit (think class features, like sneak attack or access to a new set of spells, and also 3.x feats).  Some exploits are one time, some can be taken multiple times to upgrade (like sneak attack.) Some exploits would have prereqs, but again you can take any exploit you qualify for.
Now, since we don't have a rigid class level system, we kind of lose the control on or spell levels and caster levels, so we add a magic stat that determines how many and how powerful of spells you can cast.

Now I know all this is a pretty big departure from previous editions so I'm also considering changing the name from D&D.  How does O.L.D. grab you?


----------



## mellored

delericho said:


> This. Though by rights, D&D already as too many options - for most people, somewhere between 5 and 9 distinct options is generally best.



A little more thoughts on classes.  The longer you play, the more time you spend with your character.  So the longer you play, the more distinct you want it to be.

Thus, a (possibly) ideal class structure would give you 3-5 distinct choices every few level.
So a class tree.

Something like...
3 base classes (fighter (weapons), mage (spell slots), mystic (ki/psion))
At level 3, you choose a sub-class (fighter branches to brute, archer, defender, and tactician)
At level 5, you choose a sub-sub-class (defender branches to paladin, knight, and shield master)
At level 8, you choose a sub-sub-sub-class (Paladin branches into oaths of ancients, devotion, vengence)
At level 11, you choose a sub-sub-sub-sub-class (Ancients branches into ancient of deserts, ancient of forest, ancient of seas)
etc...


So you end up making 30 or so character choices.  But it happens over several levels, with your character not only growing more powerful, but also more distinct over time.

You can also multi-sub-class.  So you could pull a mage/cleric/radiant soul + mage/priest/healer + mage/illusionist.   So lots of customization and options are still availible, but it avoid dumping them in your face all at once.


And most of the "power" scaling still happens by character level.  So a mage/wizard/illusionist/beguiler can take fighter and get a weapon attack worth using.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I might be up for power sources like 4e, but you pick a primary and a secondary.  If the power sources were:  aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, natural (muscle, mind), primal (nature), and you wanted to make a paladin, it would be natural (muscle) primary/ celestial secondary (or vice versa), and maybe something for anyone who wants to double down on a power source.  It seems like it would help with the caster/martial disparity, since you would be limited to two power sources and each is good at only certain things.  It could also reduce the need for concentration if certain effects (like summoning) from two different power sources had bad interaction effects....

Of course with D&D's long history of "half-"'s, I figure most of the human(oid) population has a little bit of something else in them, so a "human" fighter might pick natural (muscle) and have a little elemental (but not enough to be a genasai) blood.

Edit:  Forgot undead/shadow.  Probably worth it to split fiend into devil, demon, and other.  Hope at some point there are enough different kinds of celestials to do the same.  Maybe throw in psychological and psychic as power sources.


----------



## Slit518

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm sure [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] already charges his players a paladin fee at every session...




Just imagine the Warlord fees one could collect!


----------



## Eubani

Slit518 said:


> Just imagine the Warlord fees one could collect!




How about a Gnome Walord/Paladin multiclass? I hear he also has a thing against Gnomes.


----------



## Lanefan

lowkey13 said:


> Okay, my main goal would be to make it a little less magic-riffic.
> 
> So, classes and subclasses in BASE. (h/t [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] )  I would add that I would view subclasses as more differentiated than they are now, so my subclasses would be closer to "full" classes.



That's also what I was thinking - they're called sub-classes because they're in one of the core groups, but are in fact full freestanding classes.


> And that only cleric-types and wizard-types get spells. Period.



Fine, but what of the Bard.  Without quasi-magical sonic effects that make it more or less a caster, how can it be of much use along with being distinct enough to be its own class.



> Fighter
> - - Ranger (because history)
> - - Knight (Because Cavaliers suck, and they are too close to paladins)
> - - Barbarian (because Conan)
> Cleric
> - - Druid (because history)
> - - Witch (something not as religious-y)
> - - Battle Cleric  (more mace than spell)
> - - Priest (more spell than mace)
> Wizard
> - - Illusionist (the classic)
> - - Warlock (the newbie)
> - - Sorcerer (less bookie)
> Thief
> - - Assassin (history)
> - - Bard (throw those bard-lovers a bone)
> - - Monk (YES!)
> 
> In other words, stay with the core four.



As for your actual list, someone wanting to play a Paladin (yes, they're out there) could look at either a religious Knight or a War/Battle Cleric.  I left Pallies in my list as I see them as quite distinct from a Knight/Cavalier archetype.

Your list is missing a light Fighter type - Swashbuckler, Archer, or similar.  This has always been a rather glaring hole in the class lists, fillable only by multi-ing Fighter-Thief; and I really want to get rid of multiclassing if possible.

Barbarian should be renamed Berserker.

Witch should be renamed Shaman, and-or melded in with Druid.  Also, if your Witch is non-religious does that mean Druids become Nature Clerics?  If so, rename them as such.

I really want to see a Necromancer class alongside Illusionist.

I almost went with the Thief name as well, but stayed Rogue for clarity.  Were it up to me, it'd be Thief.



> Then, you can add psionics, alchemists, and other stuff in an expansion.



There's room for a Psionicist right from the start if done right, I think.  It wouldn't fall under any of the core four groups.

Lanefan


----------



## Guest 6801328

Lanefan said:


> There's room for a Psionicist right from the start if done right, I think.  It wouldn't fall under any of the core four groups.




Or.....using the "template" idea, Psionicist could be a template you overlay on any class.

Agree with the comment that Barbarian should really be named Berserker.  Then "Barbarian" should be another template, because you should be able to have Barbarian druids and rogues and bards etc.


----------



## Thurmas

The difficulty here is, with 5E, Wizards finally has a game mechanics formula that works, and is extremely popular. I think any proposal that doesn't keep the basic premises of 5E intact doesn't stand a chance. None of the past editions had the popularity of 5E, and when it comes down to it, D&D is a business.  Wizards will continue to push the model that is working until it no longer works. All these ideas wishing for 4 core classes, or 2 classes, or free form leveling, or anything else that doesn't resemble 5E, doesn't stand a chance. It is just wishful thinking.


----------



## cbwjm

Thurmas said:


> The difficulty here is, with 5E, Wizards finally has a game mechanics formula that works, and is extremely popular. I think any proposal that doesn't keep the basic premises of 5E intact doesn't stand a chance. None of the past editions had the popularity of 5E, and when it comes down to it, D&D is a business.  Wizards will continue to push the model that is working until it no longer works. All these ideas wishing for 4 core classes, or 2 classes, or free form leveling, or anything else that doesn't resemble 5E, doesn't stand a chance. It is just wishful thinking.




The whole premise of this thread is wishful thinking. The original post is asking us how would we sort classes/subclasses, not how will WotC sort them in 6e. I'm find it interesting seeing how people would do things differently. Some of these ideas I think could be developed into a fun D&D clone.


----------



## Thurmas

cbwjm said:


> The whole premise of this thread is wishful thinking. The original post is asking us how would we sort classes/subclasses, not how will WotC sort them in 6e. I'm find it interesting seeing how people would do things differently. Some of these ideas I think could be developed into a fun D&D clone.




I realize that. I just think this thread can go two drastically different directions. One where people present ideas that might happen, and one where literally anything goes, even if it would never see the light of day. I think two separate threads would serve it well.


----------



## Thurmas

This is what I would like to see presented in PHB 6.0 for classes. 4 Subclasses for each class. Mostly existing, a few new ones to fill gaps. I think I chose a pretty well rounded example of subclasses. I'd want the subclasses to bring more power and distinctness then they currently do, relying less on the main class for abilities. The subclasses presented don't have to bring their current abilities with them, just the theme they present. The only class I'd like to see added that I didn't include would be some kind of Arcane half caster, and maybe an Alchemist. 

*Barbarian:*
Path of the Ancestral Guardian
Path of the Berserker
Path of the Storm Herald
Path of the Totem Warrior

*Bard:*
College of Glamour
College of Lore
College of Swords
College of Whispers

*Cleric:*
Grave Domain
Life Domain
Light Domain
Tempest Domain

*Druid:*
Circle of the Land
Circle of the Moon
Circle of the Summoner
Circle of the Treant

*Fighter:*
Battlemaster
Cavalier
Eldritch Knight
Warlord

*Monk:*
Way of the Four Elements
Way of the Kensei
Way of the Open Hand
Way of Shadow

*Mystic:*
Order of the Avatar
Order of the Awakened
Order of the Immortal
Order of the Soul Knife

*Paladin:*
Oath of the Crown
Oath of Devotion
Oath of Redemption
Oath of Vengence

*Ranger:*
Beastmaster
Hunter
Scout
Spell-less

*Rogue:*
Arcane Trickster
Assassin
Swashbuckler
Thief

*Sorcerer:*
Elementalist
Shadow Sorcerer
Storm Sorcerer
Wild Mage

*Warlock:*
Archfey
Celestial
Fiend
Great Old One

*Wizard:*
Enchanter
Illusionist
Necromancer
Warmage


----------



## Lanefan

Elfcrusher said:


> Or.....using the "template" idea, Psionicist could be a template you overlay on any class.
> 
> Agree with the comment that Barbarian should really be named Berserker.  Then "Barbarian" should be another template, because you should be able to have Barbarian druids and rogues and bards etc.



I've always maintained that Barbarian should be a sub-race of Human.  This would also give the option for Barbarian Druids and rogues and what-have-you.



			
				Thurmas said:
			
		

> Cleric:
> Grave Domain
> Life Domain
> Light Domain
> Tempest Domain



Where's the War or Battle domain?  Tempest sounds more like it wants to be a Weather Cleric (and wouldn't that fit better under Druid?)

Lanefan


----------



## Thurmas

Lanefan said:


> Where's the War or Battle domain?  Tempest sounds more like it wants to be a Weather Cleric (and wouldn't that fit better under Druid?)
> 
> Lanefan




It could certainly be switched out. I had to make compromises, especially with the Cleric and Wizard, due to the number of options they get. I went with Tempest because it still went with a punch stuff in the face approach, but War could just as easily go in there too. This was more proof of concept then anything. I'm sure there are many differing opinions on what would be included.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Someone gave this thread 1 star?  This is just a fun thought exercise, and not one of those "EVERYTHING ABOUT 5E SUCKS!" threads.  Gonna have to do my part to correct that rating then...


----------



## Sacrosanct

cbwjm said:


> The whole premise of this thread is wishful thinking. The original post is asking us how would we sort classes/subclasses, not how will WotC sort them in 6e. I'm find it interesting seeing how people would do things differently. Some of these ideas I think could be developed into a fun D&D clone.






Thurmas said:


> I realize that. I just think this thread can go two drastically different directions. One where people present ideas that might happen, and one where literally anything goes, even if it would never see the light of day. I think two separate threads would serve it well.




Yes, this thread is all wishful thinking.  If we were to guess what WotC would really do with 6e, we'd have to realize that the scope of whatever new version of D&D comes next still has to identify as D&D.  That means classes in a recognizable and familiar format.  Which of course means all of us have unrealistic suggestions


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Lanefan said:


> I've always maintained that Barbarian should be a sub-race of Human.  This would also give the option for Barbarian Druids and rogues and what-have-you.
> 
> 
> Where's the War or Battle domain?  Tempest sounds more like it wants to be a Weather Cleric (and wouldn't that fit better under Druid?)
> 
> Lanefan




Barbarian as a human subrace would be interesting, since it would be easier to be build racial features for that then for "generic" humans, and if you used a picture of a big European guy (or gal) in furs as the PHB one, it would avoid any unseemly issues (even if it is just as good for planes-dwelling nomads as Viking raiders). Robert E. Howard would approve.  Of course, that leaves what to do for city dwellers and townsfolk/farmers (presumably the other two human races), but I think that could be dealt with (city dwellers probably get another language).


----------



## Guest 6801328

Yeah, in general what I would love from 6e would be a dozen Human sub-races, and the elimination of the generic "Variant".

...and then let everybody pick one feat at level 1.


----------



## steeldragons

Hmm. Taking another tack/swing...looking at things -not necessarily as I would want them, but as they might go, given what 5e already has/does...perhaps tying things back into more abstract elements of the classes, like Primary/secondary Abilities and Alignment (perhaps even as "requirements?" GASP!) to try to fill out their stable of potential characters.

Namely, you have the "Big 4" cardinal classes: Warriors, Wizards, Mystics [nee Priests], and Rogues.

In keeping with tradition, these are the classes of: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Dexterity, respectively.

Constitution and Charisma are, and have always been (perceptions or traditions of "drop stats" notwithstanding), the "important for anybody/all characters." So they generate the rest of the "primary class" mix. Str/Con, Str/Cha, Int/Con, Int/Cha, etc... 

Subclasses from there, then, incorporate the various themes and flavors common to the class with or without secondary or tertiary ability requirements, alignment restrictions, perhaps even race restrictions and other factors. Make classes that are supposed to be rare in the game world, actually DIFFICULT and rare to find/play! 

OH, and what did we learn from 5e?
1. Not everyone needs spells! As I have known and used for a looong time (and do exactly as Lowkey suggests), there are "caster" classes (wizards and mystics) and there are non-caster classes (warriors and rogues). 
2. Everybody should be getting a similar -if not same- number of starting subclass archetypes. Not 7 for this guy, and 2 for this one. No. Not doing that again.

Which gives us a complete 6e Players' Handbook class list looking something like...

*"Basic" Game Foundation* (2 Base + 6 subclasses of casters, 2 Base + 6 subclasses of non-casters)
*Cleric* (Wis 10): straight up cleric.
- Crusader (Wis 13/Str 10) : more weapons/armor, less spells
- Healer (Wis 13/Int 10): more spells, less weapons/armor
- Avenger (Wis or Str 15/Wis or Str 13/Dex 10): weapons, armor, spells, Roguish tricks/skills.

*Fighter* (Str 10): straight up fighter.
-Champion (Str 13/Dex 10) : strongman/weapon expert, access subset of fighting styles different than Battlemaster
-Battlemaster (Str 13/Int 10) : the strategic combat expert, access to subset of fighting styles different than Champion
-Hero (Str or Con 15/Str or Con 13/Cha 10) : weapon expert, strategic expert, all fighting styles, Roguish tricks/skills. 

*Mage* (Int. 10): straight up mage["wizard"].
- Illusionist (Int 13/Dex 10) : phantasmal magic, some arcane magic, enchantments, sneaky tricks
- Necromancer (Int 13/Wis 10) : necromantic magic, some arcane magic, healing, undead summoning and control
- Witch (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 13/Cha 10) : phantasmal & necromantic magic, enchantments & healing, "Witch's Craft."

*Thief *(Dex. 10) : straight up thief["rogue"].
- Assassin (Dex 13/Str 10) : flippy flip tumble jump, stealth, sneaky tricks
- Investigator (Dex 13/Int 10) : deductive reasoning, search and perception bonuses, sneaky tricks
- Swashbuckler (Dex or Str 15/ Dex or Str 13/Cha 10) : flippy flip, search/perception bonuses, sneaky tricks, Fightery styles/skills.

*Second "Advanced" tier of Classes* (3 Base + 6 subclasses of non-casters, 3 Base + 9 subclasses of casters + 3 subclasses of supernatural powers without spell use)
*Barbarian* (Str 13/Con 10) : default barbarian. NO SPELLS!
-Berserker Barbarian (Str or Con 13/Str or Con 13/Wis 10) : more raging, less skills/tricks, more damage without raging 
-Reaver Barbarian (Str or Con 13/Str or Con 13/Dex 10) : less raging, more skills/tricks, more attacks without raging
-Totem Warrior (Str or Con 15/Str or Con 13/Cha 10) : supernatural nature/"spirit" powers, magical trances. 

*Bard* (Wis 13/Cha 10) : default bard.
-Lore Bard (Wis or Cha 13/Wis or Cha 13/Int 10) : more spells, more knowledge, less combat skills/tricks 
-Skald (Wis or Cha 13/Wis or Cha 13/Str 10) : less spells, less knowledge, more combat skills/tricks
-Jester (Wis or Cha 15/Wis or Cha 13/Dex 10) : less spells, less combat ability, more skills/tricks, "Rhymes & Jokes." 

*Druid* (Wis. 13/Con 10) : default druid.
-Land Druid (Wis or Con 13/ Wis or Con 13/Int 10) : more spells, less shapeshifting, summoning/controlling plants & the elements.
-Beast Druid (Wis or Con 13/Wis or Con 13/Str 10) : less spells, more shapeshifting, summoning/controlling animals
-Shaman (Wis or Con 15/Wis or Con 13/Cha 10) : less spells, less shapeshifting, summoning/controlling "spirits" [elemental/fae/shadow/undead], "Spirit Walking."

*Knight* (Str. 13/Cha 10) ; default knight. NO SPELLS!
-Questing Knight (Str or Cha 13/Str or Cha 13/Con 10) : combat/damage expertise, more individual effects, different Virtues than Cavaliers
-Cavalier[Banneret] (Str or Cha 13/Str or Cha 13/Int 10) : combat/attack expertise, more area effects, different Virtues than Questing Knights
-Paladin (Str or Cha 15/Str or Cha 13/Wis 10): supernatural divine powers, magical auras.

*Ranger *(Dex. 13/Con 10) : default ranger. NO SPELLS!
-Hunter Ranger (Dex or Con 13/Dex or Con 13/Int 10) : more movement, less armor/weapons, different tricks/skills than Vanguard, increased Preferred Enemies hit bonus
-Vanguard Ranger (Dex or Con 13/Dex or Con 13/Str 10) : less movement, more armor/weapons, different tricks/skills than Hunter, increased Preferred Enemies damage bonus
-Warden (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 13/Wis 10) : supernatural nature powers, magical trances & auras.

*Warlock** (Int 13/Con 10) : default warlock.
-Tome Warlock (Int or Con 13/Int or Con 13/Wis 10) : more spells, less weapons/armor, different invocations than Blade warlocks 
-Blade Warlock (Int or Con 13/Int or Con 13/Str 10) : less spells, more weapons/armor, different invocations than Tome warlocks
-Pact/Binding Warlock (Int or Con 15/Int or Con 13/Dex 10) : less spells, less weapons/armor, all invocations, summoning/controlling extradimensional minions.

*Tertiary "Appendix" tier of "Power Point" Classes* (3 Base + 9 subclasses all supernatural powers with or without spell use)
*Monk* (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 13/Wis 10) : default monk. Power Points: Ki.
-Sun Monk (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 15/Cha 10) : glowy enlightened soul, supernatural radiant magic powers kung-fu warrior.
-Shadow Monk (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 15/Int 10) : ninja ninja ninja, supernatural shadow magic powers ninja
-Dragon Monk (Dex or Con 15/ Dex or Con 15/Str 10) : SKA-DOOSH! supernatural nature/elemental magic powers mystic.

*Psychic* (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 13/Con 10) : default psychic. Power Points: Psy.
-Telepath (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 15/Wis 10) : talking to and controlling other minds
-Telekinetic/Kineticist (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 15/Dex 10) : moving other stuff with your mind.
-Psychic Warrior [basically a Jedi] (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 15/Str 10): some mind tricks, some moving stuff, psychically energizing your weapons/attacks.

*Sorcerer*** (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 13/Cha 10) : default sorcerer. Power Points: Sorcery.
-Elementalist^ (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 15/Con 10) : more spells (related to player choice of element), less armor/weapons, different meta-magics than Favored Souls  
-Favored Soul^^ (Int of Wis 15/Int or Wis 15/Str 10) : less spells, more armor/weapons, different meta-magics than Elementalists
-Wild Magus (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 15/Dex 10) : less spells, all metamagics, supernatural arcane magic effects, magical mantles

*** All Warlocks, contrasting to 5e, still choose a Patron as a primary 1st level thing, and while still dictating certain features, is more of a flavor thing than the importance and defining features of a Warlock's Pact. Default Warlocks are assumed to have paid/given up something (their soul, their youth, their sanity, etc...) slowly eroded/tainting them as they increase in power.
**** The "origin" of Sorcerers is completely immaterial and a matter of pure character background fluff and flavor determined by the player and/or DM. And type of Sorcerer could be born with magic for any number of reasons.
*^* "Elementalists" have options far beyond the 4 elements. Choose from the following options: air, animals (and/or any subset thereof: just birds, just fish, etc...), earth/stone, fire, force, light/radiance, metal/magnetism, plants/vegetation, shadow, water and/or ice, weather.
*^^* "Favored Souls" are reflavored/-fluffed as a catch-all to not simply beings of Celestial connection or magic, but empowered by any being of magical origin: dragons, genies, celestials, fiends, archfey, etc... It's about the combat abilities and types of extra magical damage/effects they can do. So "Favored Souls" could be what we think of now as "Draconic Sorcerers" or "Celestial Favored Souls" or "Fae-Knights" or whatever.


----------



## mellored

Hmm.... Everything as a feat?

*X = proficency bonus. This increases based on your total XP.
*You gain 1 max HP for every 10 total XP.
*Everyone starts with 50 XP.
*Use XP to buy feats.

Basic Attack (5 XP)
You attack with whatever weapon you have on hand. You deal Xd6 damage make a melee attack, or Xd4 damage if you make a ranged attack.

Skill (1 XP)
You gain +1 to a skill.
You can take this multiple times. Increasing the cost by a cumulative 1 XP each time you choose the same skill.

Fighter 1 (30 XP)
You gain a +1 bonus athletics, endurance. Reduce any damage you take from physical attacks by 1.
You gain the following 3 stances. You can choose a stance at the start of your turn, but can only have 1 stance available at a time.
Shield: You deal Xd8 melee damage, and reduce any damage taken by 1.
Brute: You deal Xd12 melee damage.
Ranged: You deal Xd6 damage at a range of 30'. Half that at a range of 60'.
Dervish: Make 2 melee attacks, each dealing Xd6 damage.

Fighter 2 (50 XP, requires fighter)
You gain a +1 bonus athletics, endurance.
Reduce any damage you take from physical attacks by 1.
You can split your damage from your stances between targets.

Defender (40XP, requires fighter)
When using the shield stance, further reduce any damage you take by 1.
You can take this multiple times. The cost increases by 40XP each time.

Archer 1 (20 XP, requires fighter)
Increase the damage dealt by in Ranged stance to Xd8.

Archer 2 (50 XP, requires archer 1)
Increase the damage dealt by in Ranged stance to Xd10.

Archer 3 (100 XP, requires archer 1)
Increase the damage dealt by in Ranged stance to Xd12.

Sniper (20 XP, requires archer 1)
Increase the range of Ranged stance by 10', and the long range by 20'
You can take this multiple times.

Light (5 XP)
You touch an object and it glows with a magical light that illuminates up to a X * 10' radius. If you use this spell again the previous light turns off.
You can take this multiple times, letting you light an additional object each time.

Firebolt (5 XP)
You deal Xd6 fire damage at a range of 30'.

Burning Hands (30 XP, requires firebolt)
You gain +1 to arcana.
Twice perper long rest, you can cast Burning Hands. Dealing Xd6 fire damage in a 15' cone.
You can spend 10 XP to gain another use of this spell.

Fireball (50 XP, requires burning hands)
You gain +1 to arcana.
Once per long rest, you can cast Fireball, dealing Xd6 damage in a 20' sphere within 100'.
You can spend 30 XP to gain another use of this spell.

Meteor Swarm (300 XP, requires fireball)
Once per long rest, you can cast Meteor Swarm, dealing Xd8 damage in 4 different 20' spheres. A creature can only take damage from this once.

Wizard (40 XP, at least 3 differnt spells)
You gain +1 to arcana.
At the end of a long rest, you can give up a use of one of your spells spell in order to gain a use another spell.

Evoker (60 XP, at least 3 differnt damage spells)
When you roll damage for a damage spell, you can reroll 1 die.
You can take this multiple times. Though you must reroll all dice together.

Cure wounds (30 XP)
You gain +1 to Religion
Twice per long rest, you can cast Cure Wounds. Healing a creature you touch for Xd6 damage.
You can spend 10 XP to gain another use of this spell.

Healing Word (20 XP, requires cure wounds)
You gain +1 to Religion
Once per turn, you can cast cure wounds without taking an action. You also increase it's range to 30'.

Arcane Archer 1 (30 XP, requires archer, at least 1 spell)
During a rest, you can imbue your arrows with a spells. To trigger the spell, you must use Ranged Stance with that arrow. Your attack deals half damage, and the spell triggers on the target.

Paladin (50 XP, requires fighter, cure wounds)
You and each creature within 30' of you take 1 less damage.

Oath of Anceint (50 XP, requires paladin)
You and each creature within 30' of you takes 1 less damage from spells.

etc....



Edit: Hmm... Close, but it needs to be organized better.  A long list of options is a bit overwhelming.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I've always found the 4e way of having ''power source'' but dont really care for the the ''roles''. For 6e, I'd go with the main 4, and add a subclass or archtype for every ''power source''. Also, ''power source'' doest necessarily means some kind of magic power but more of a theme or flavor, like the ones in Numenera that you can add to your main class to create the concept you want. I'd also do something for the ones who wants to multiclass within the same ''power source'' like removing multiclass pre-requesite. 
Ex:
*Fighter*
Martial: Warrior
Arcane: Eldritch Knight
Divine: Crusader
Psionic: Battlemind (mix between egoist psion and monk)
Draconic: Dragon Knight (Dragoon?) or Dragonslayer
Primal: Wrathbearer (barbarian without the cultural bagage)
Shadow: Assassin

*Strider* (aka rogue, thief, vagabond, expert)
Martial: Swashbuckler
Arcane: Bard
Divine: Inquisitor (witch hunter? avenger?)
Psionic: Soul knive
Draconic: Hoard Raider
Primal: Ranger
Shadow: Shadow dancer

*Mage*
Martial: Battlemage
Arcane: Wizard
Divine: Theurge
Pisonic: Mindmage, Psion, Psychic etc
Draconic: Dragon sorcerer
Primal: Druid (green seer? Fey Beguiler?)
Shadow: Illusionist

*Mystic* (cleric, priest)
Martial: Warpriest (warlord-like)
Arcane: Warlock
Divine: Favored Soul
Psion: Oracle
Draconic: Dragon priest
Primal: Shaman
Shadow: Dread necromancer


----------



## Blue

What do you think of this:

Simplify to a few core *mechanical* classes (_not thematic_ classes).  Levels with ASI adjustment and for subclass features are left in, thought the latter becomes for overlay features (see below).  Subcalss features would start at 1st.

Allow 5e style multiclassing.  (But remember, you're down to classes like "Tank, Caster, Leader, Skirmisher/Archer, Skill Monkey", so there's not as many classes to overlap.

Characters pick a thematic overlay.  These overlays are not limited by class, but rather adjust for them all.  They also have overlay features for each of the classes, picked up when you reach that stub.

You then build you character one level at time using these.

So say you want a paladin, which is an overlay.  

The 1st feature for Casters might be to use CHR for casting and have access to the Paladin spell list.  Later features might give you Divine Smite.  1st level feature for Leader gives you Lay On Hands and maybe some "Lead from the Front" feature.  Maybe the 3rd Tank AND the 2nd Leader feature are both Aura of Protection, and if you have both it expands from 10' to 30' radius.

You don't get an overlay feature every class level much like you don't get a subclass feature every level right now - these are probably something like 1st, 3rd, 6th, and so on.  The other level, as now, are filled with abilities core to your class.

While I'd be a bit worried about cherry picking, theoretically you should be able to pick more than one overlay to define your character.  For example there might be a Lord of the Storm overlay, which could be a good overlay with Caster for a tempest cleric, but might also help flesh out your Paladin of THOR-EXPY!  

At that point you just have choice of the overlay features.  Say you were a Tank 1 and took the Paladin overlay feature.  At Tank 3 when you get another overlay feature, you could take the second Paladin feature, or you could take the _first_ Lord of the Storm feature.  Watch out, Retributive Thunderbolts to rebuke those who attack you or your friends.

Or instead of Lord of the Storm, maybe there's an Oath of the Ancients overlay you want.  But it has fun things like the 1st Skirmisher feature gives advantage to stealth and ignore difficult terrain in natural settings, and so on - it's not meant just for paladins.


----------



## Blue

BTW, I'm loving this thread.  I'm seeing so much non-confrontational brainstorming with metric tons of good ideas.  It's just been inspiring and supportive.  People aren't cutting down each other's ideas, just running with the ones they like.

Good job folks.  And thank you @_*mellored*_ for starting it.


----------



## Lanefan

MechaTarrasque said:


> Barbarian as a human subrace would be interesting, since it would be easier to be build racial features for that then for "generic" humans, and if you used a picture of a big European guy (or gal) in furs as the PHB one, it would avoid any unseemly issues (even if it is just as good for planes-dwelling nomads as Viking raiders).



That's exactly what we've been doing for ages in our games. 







> Of course, that leaves what to do for city dwellers and townsfolk/farmers (presumably the other two human races), but I think that could be dealt with (city dwellers probably get another language).



No, just one other human race for these purposes, and it's called "Human".  It remains the baseline, with Barbarians gaining some Str or Con but losing some Int or Wis - much like a less-extreme Part Orc.


----------



## Lanefan

steeldragons said:


> Namely, you have the "Big 4" cardinal classes: Warriors, Wizards, Mystics [nee Priests], and Rogues.



Whatever happened to Fighters, Magic-Users, Clerics and Thieves? 



> Make classes that are supposed to be rare in the game world, actually DIFFICULT and rare to find/play!



I like this, though I suspect I'll be in the minority.

As for your actual list:


> Which gives us a complete 6e Players' Handbook class list looking something like...
> 
> *"Basic" Game Foundation* (2 Base + 6 subclasses of casters, 2 Base + 6 subclasses of non-casters)
> *Cleric* (Wis 10): straight up cleric.
> - Crusader (Wis 13/Str 10) : more weapons/armor, less spells
> - Healer (Wis 13/Int 10): more spells, less weapons/armor
> - Avenger (Wis or Str 15/Wis or Str 13/Dex 10): weapons, armor, spells, Roguish tricks/skills.



So, Crusader is a War Cleric (though the name makes me think it's a reskinned Paladin), a Healer is a Life Cleric, but what is an Avenger?  Something of a Cleric-Thief cross?



> *Fighter* (Str 10): straight up fighter.
> -Champion (Str 13/Dex 10) : strongman/weapon expert, access subset of fighting styles different than Battlemaster
> -Battlemaster (Str 13/Int 10) : the strategic combat expert, access to subset of fighting styles different than Champion
> -Hero (Str or Con 15/Str or Con 13/Cha 10) : weapon expert, strategic expert, all fighting styles, Roguish tricks/skills.



My worry here is that Hero and Swashbuckler (listed below) would tread on each other's toes.



> *Mage* (Int. 10): straight up mage["wizard"].
> - Illusionist (Int 13/Dex 10) : phantasmal magic, some arcane magic, enchantments, sneaky tricks
> - Necromancer (Int 13/Wis 10) : necromantic magic, some arcane magic, healing, undead summoning and control
> - Witch (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 13/Cha 10) : phantasmal & necromantic magic, enchantments & healing, "Witch's Craft."



Necromancer should be more focused on hurting than healing. (I've never agreed with the classification of healing spells as necromantic).  And is your Witch (Shaman?) kind of a Necro-Illusionist cross?



> *Thief *(Dex. 10) : straight up thief["rogue"].
> - Assassin (Dex 13/Str 10) : flippy flip tumble jump, stealth, sneaky tricks
> - Investigator (Dex 13/Int 10) : deductive reasoning, search and perception bonuses, sneaky tricks
> - Swashbuckler (Dex or Str 15/ Dex or Str 13/Cha 10) : flippy flip, search/perception bonuses, sneaky tricks, Fightery styles/skills.



Amusingly, "flippy flip" is the term we always use for what Monks do. 

I really like the Investigator idea.  Good one!

Still wondering if Swashbuckler and Hero are too close to being the same thing.



> *Second "Advanced" tier of Classes* (3 Base + 6 subclasses of non-casters, 3 Base + 9 subclasses of casters + 3 subclasses of supernatural powers without spell use)
> *Barbarian* (Str 13/Con 10) : default barbarian. NO SPELLS!
> -Berserker Barbarian (Str or Con 13/Str or Con 13/Wis 10) : more raging, less skills/tricks, more damage without raging
> -Reaver Barbarian (Str or Con 13/Str or Con 13/Dex 10) : less raging, more skills/tricks, more attacks without raging
> -Totem Warrior (Str or Con 15/Str or Con 13/Cha 10) : supernatural nature/"spirit" powers, magical trances.
> 
> *Bard* (Wis 13/Cha 10) : default bard.
> -Lore Bard (Wis or Cha 13/Wis or Cha 13/Int 10) : more spells, more knowledge, less combat skills/tricks
> -Skald (Wis or Cha 13/Wis or Cha 13/Str 10) : less spells, less knowledge, more combat skills/tricks
> -Jester (Wis or Cha 15/Wis or Cha 13/Dex 10) : less spells, less combat ability, more skills/tricks, "Rhymes & Jokes."



These look good, though how would you differentiate Jester from a normal Bard being played chaotically?



> *Druid* (Wis. 13/Con 10) : default druid.
> -Land Druid (Wis or Con 13/ Wis or Con 13/Int 10) : more spells, less shapeshifting, summoning/controlling plants & the elements.
> -Beast Druid (Wis or Con 13/Wis or Con 13/Str 10) : less spells, more shapeshifting, summoning/controlling animals
> -Shaman (Wis or Con 15/Wis or Con 13/Cha 10) : less spells, less shapeshifting, summoning/controlling "spirits" [elemental/fae/shadow/undead], "Spirit Walking."



Ah, here's where the "Shaman" name ended up.

What about a Druid type who doesn't summon at all, instead focusing on spells (particularly healing), herbcraft (along with Ranger), and shapeshifting?



> *Knight* (Str. 13/Cha 10) ; default knight. NO SPELLS!
> -Questing Knight (Str or Cha 13/Str or Cha 13/Con 10) : combat/damage expertise, more individual effects, different Virtues than Cavaliers
> -Cavalier[Banneret] (Str or Cha 13/Str or Cha 13/Int 10) : combat/attack expertise, more area effects, different Virtues than Questing Knights
> -Paladin (Str or Cha 15/Str or Cha 13/Wis 10): supernatural divine powers, magical auras.



While I love the Knight as a class I'm not sure there's enough in it to justify 4 classes.  One of the Questing Knight or Cavalier could easily become the default Knight, and Paladin could either move up to Cleric, replacing Crusader; or move up to Fighter replacing Hero which gets subsumed into Swashbuckler.



> *Ranger *(Dex. 13/Con 10) : default ranger. NO SPELLS!
> -Hunter Ranger (Dex or Con 13/Dex or Con 13/Int 10) : more movement, less armor/weapons, different tricks/skills than Vanguard, increased Preferred Enemies hit bonus
> -Vanguard Ranger (Dex or Con 13/Dex or Con 13/Str 10) : less movement, more armor/weapons, different tricks/skills than Hunter, increased Preferred Enemies damage bonus
> -Warden (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 13/Wis 10) : supernatural nature powers, magical trances & auras.



To keep them less magic-based, suggest replacing magical trances and auras in the Warden with better tracking and herbcraft.



> *Warlock** (Int 13/Con 10) : default warlock.
> -Tome Warlock (Int or Con 13/Int or Con 13/Wis 10) : more spells, less weapons/armor, different invocations than Blade warlocks
> -Blade Warlock (Int or Con 13/Int or Con 13/Str 10) : less spells, more weapons/armor, different invocations than Tome warlocks
> -Pact/Binding Warlock (Int or Con 15/Int or Con 13/Dex 10) : less spells, less weapons/armor, all invocations, summoning/controlling extradimensional minions.



Meh - Warlocks add nothing for me.



> *Tertiary "Appendix" tier of "Power Point" Classes* (3 Base + 9 subclasses all supernatural powers with or without spell use)
> *Monk* (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 13/Wis 10) : default monk. Power Points: Ki.
> -Sun Monk (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 15/Cha 10) : glowy enlightened soul, supernatural radiant magic powers kung-fu warrior.
> -Shadow Monk (Dex or Con 15/Dex or Con 15/Int 10) : ninja ninja ninja, supernatural shadow magic powers ninja
> -Dragon Monk (Dex or Con 15/ Dex or Con 15/Str 10) : SKA-DOOSH! supernatural nature/elemental magic powers mystic.
> 
> *Psychic* (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 13/Con 10) : default psychic. Power Points: Psy.
> -Telepath (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 15/Wis 10) : talking to and controlling other minds
> -Telekinetic/Kineticist (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 15/Dex 10) : moving other stuff with your mind.
> -Psychic Warrior [basically a Jedi] (Int or Cha 15/Int or Cha 15/Str 10): some mind tricks, some moving stuff, psychically energizing your weapons/attacks.
> 
> *Sorcerer*** (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 13/Cha 10) : default sorcerer. Power Points: Sorcery.
> -Elementalist^ (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 15/Con 10) : more spells (related to player choice of element), less armor/weapons, different meta-magics than Favored Souls
> -Favored Soul^^ (Int of Wis 15/Int or Wis 15/Str 10) : less spells, more armor/weapons, different meta-magics than Elementalists
> -Wild Magus (Int or Wis 15/Int or Wis 15/Dex 10) : less spells, all metamagics, supernatural arcane magic effects, magical mantles



These are all good, though I'd love to see Wild Magus be listed under a base class rather than tertiary.



> *** All Warlocks, contrasting to 5e, still choose a Patron as a primary 1st level thing, and while still dictating certain features, is more of a flavor thing than the importance and defining features of a Warlock's Pact. Default Warlocks are assumed to have paid/given up something (their soul, their youth, their sanity, etc...) slowly eroded/tainting them as they increase in power.
> **** The "origin" of Sorcerers is completely immaterial and a matter of pure character background fluff and flavor determined by the player and/or DM. And type of Sorcerer could be born with magic for any number of reasons.
> *^* "Elementalists" have options far beyond the 4 elements. Choose from the following options: air, animals (and/or any subset thereof: just birds, just fish, etc...), earth/stone, fire, force, light/radiance, metal/magnetism, plants/vegetation, shadow, water and/or ice, weather.
> *^^* "Favored Souls" are reflavored/-fluffed as a catch-all to not simply beings of Celestial connection or magic, but empowered by any being of magical origin: dragons, genies, celestials, fiends, archfey, etc... It's about the combat abilities and types of extra magical damage/effects they can do. So "Favored Souls" could be what we think of now as "Draconic Sorcerers" or "Celestial Favored Souls" or "Fae-Knights" or whatever.




Lanefan


----------



## Sacrosanct

Blue said:


> BTW, I'm loving this thread.  I'm seeing so much non-confrontational brainstorming with metric tons of good ideas.  It's just been inspiring and supportive.  People are cutting down each other's ideas, just running with the ones they like.
> 
> Good job folks.  And thank you [MENTION=6801209]mellored[/MENTION] for starting it.




I second this.  It's really got my gear turning.  As a game designer, such a question poses an excellent exercise 

OK, so a few requirements and assumptions (IMO anyway): Whatever revisions we suggest has to be compatible with the larger game (like spells, monsters, leveling, etc) since only classes/subclasses are in scope for this exercise.

So to expand on what I've been doing, I'm really leaning towards something like this:

Classes: The are the core four: cleric, fighter, magic user, and rogue.  At odd levels, the classes grant a core feature (plus the initial basics like proficiencies and hit die, etc)

Occupational Package:  Kind of like super subclasses.  These grant a feature at every even level.

For example:

*Fighter*:
level 1: Choose a fighting style and second wind (as written)
Level 3: action surge, improved critical
Level 5: extra attack
Level 7: Quick learner (due to affinity to learn tactical patterns and strategy, translate that into granting yourself advantage and proficiency on any one skill check you choose.  Must be attempted immediately. Use this a number of times equal to your prof bonus (minimum once) per long rest
Level 9: resilient: once per long rest, turn any failed saving throw or skill check into a success
Level 11: extra attack
Level 13: Indomitable (as PHB), extra fighting style
Level 15: superior critical
Level 17: survivor (as PHB)
Level 19: extra attack

And let's say for an occupational package, you want to be a *commander *(requiring a prerequisite of having a CHA of 13).  So:
Level 2: Tactical knowledge (If you have a minute to prepare for battle knowing what you face before combat starts, you and every ally within 60ft has advantage on their first roll of the encounter), Inspiring word (d6.  You have as many as your CHA modifier, which recharges after a short or long rest.  Choose 3 of the Commander maneuvers from the list below)
Level 4: ASI or feat
Level 6: Inspiring Word (IW) is now a d8, choose an additional maneuver to learn
Level 8: Battle leadership (If you have not already taken your action, as a reaction, give up your action and choose an ally within 60ft that had just finished his or her turn.  That ally can take another action immediately)
Level 10: IW is a d10.  Chose an addition maneuver to learn
Level 12: ASI or feat
Level 14: Lasting Leadership (As long as you are not incapacitated, all allies within 60ft of you gain a bonus of +1 to all Saving throws and skill checks)
Level 16: IW is a d12.  Learn all of the remaining maneuvers
Level 18: ASI or Feat
Level 20: Battlefield general (Gain an awareness of the battlefield and share a link with all allies of your choosing within 60ft.  You gain telepathy with these allies, and your shared awareness results in you and each eligible ally gaining advantage on all Saving Throws and a bonus +2 to AC while maintaining concentration.  This lasts for as long as you maintain concentration, or up to 1 hour, and be used once per long rest)

*Commander Maneuvers* (use a reaction to invoke)
_Rally_: you or a target within 30ft gains IW in Hit Points
_Precision target_: choose an ally within 30ft or yourself.  The next attack roll by that ally within the next round will be made with a bonus equally your IW roll
_Inspired_: Choose an ally within 30ft.  That ally will add the result of you IW roll to the next skill check he or she makes
_Coordinated Strike_: choose an ally within 30ft or yourself that just made a successful attack.  Add the IW roll to the damage of that attack
_Watchout_: choose an ally within 30ft that was just attacked.  Roll the IW die and add that to the AC of the ally until the start of your next turn
_Planned Defense_: choose an ally within 30ft or yourself.  Add the IW roll result to the next saving throw if taken within the next round
_Better Route_: Choose an ally within 60ft or yourself.  Spend an IW die and add 30ft to the target's movement.  The target can immediately move, and avoid any AoO if one were to be prompted
_Get UP_: choose an ally within 60ft that just fell unconscious.  Spend an IW die to immediately bring that PC back to 1 hp.



Note:  These are just rough ideas, so don't expect them to be balanced or anything


----------



## Lanefan

vincegetorix said:


> I've always found the 4e way of having ''power source'' but dont really care for the the ''roles''. For 6e, I'd go with the main 4, and add a subclass or archtype for every ''power source''. Also, ''power source'' doest necessarily means some kind of magic power but more of a theme or flavor, like the ones in Numenera that you can add to your main class to create the concept you want. I'd also do something for the ones who wants to multiclass within the same ''power source'' like removing multiclass pre-requesite.
> Ex:
> *Fighter*
> Martial: Warrior
> Arcane: Eldritch Knight
> Divine: Crusader
> Psionic: Battlemind (mix between egoist psion and monk)
> Draconic: Dragon Knight (Dragoon?) or Dragonslayer
> Primal: Wrathbearer (barbarian without the cultural bagage)
> Shadow: Assassin
> 
> *Strider* (aka rogue, thief, vagabond, expert)
> Martial: Swashbuckler
> Arcane: Bard
> Divine: Inquisitor (witch hunter? avenger?)
> Psionic: Soul knive
> Draconic: Hoard Raider
> Primal: Ranger
> Shadow: Shadow dancer
> 
> *Mage*
> Martial: Battlemage
> Arcane: Wizard
> Divine: Theurge
> Pisonic: Mindmage, Psion, Psychic etc
> Draconic: Dragon sorcerer
> Primal: Druid (green seer? Fey Beguiler?)
> Shadow: Illusionist
> 
> *Mystic* (cleric, priest)
> Martial: Warpriest (warlord-like)
> Arcane: Warlock
> Divine: Favored Soul
> Psion: Oracle
> Draconic: Dragon priest
> Primal: Shaman
> Shadow: Dread necromancer



This might be on to something.  Certainly an interesting approach.

Were it me I'd find a way to put Necromancer into Mage rather than Mystic; and switch Druid - which has always been a Cleric type - and Shaman....or just rename Shaman as Druid and find a different name for the primal class under Mage.

What I don't see anywhere is Monk.  Intentional?

Lanefan


----------



## Blue

MechaTarrasque said:


> I might be up for power sources like 4e, but you pick a primary and a secondary.  If the power sources were:  aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, natural (muscle, mind), primal (nature), and you wanted to make a paladin, it would be natural (muscle) primary/ celestial secondary (or vice versa), and maybe something for anyone who wants to double down on a power source.  It seems like it would help with the caster/martial disparity, since you would be limited to two power sources and each is good at only certain things.  It could also reduce the need for concentration if certain effects (like summoning) from two different power sources had bad interaction effects....
> 
> Of course with D&D's long history of "half-"'s, I figure most of the human(oid) population has a little bit of something else in them, so a "human" fighter might pick natural (muscle) and have a little elemental (but not enough to be a genasai) blood.
> 
> Edit:  Forgot undead/shadow.  Probably worth it to split fiend into devil, demon, and other.  Hope at some point there are enough different kinds of celestials to do the same.  Maybe throw in psychological and psychic as power sources.




Ohh, I like this a lot.

One thing I might suggest is to expand out "natural" to be 3-4 options.  Because one party in five might have an aberration or a shadow, but likely every one will have a "natural", if not more than one.  Expanding it out helps deal with the "magic gets all the cool toys" phenomenon.  Plus you can have things like a Fighter [Mind] who uses strategy, tactics and out-anticipating foes to be effective in a different way than a Fighter [Muscle].


----------



## Sacrosanct

Lanefan said:


> Were it me I'd find a way to put Necromancer into Mage rather than Mystic; and switch Druid - which has always been a Cleric type - and Shaman....or just rename Shaman as Druid and find a different name for the primal class under Mage.
> 
> 
> Lanefan




Honestly, and you probably already knew this by reading posts, I wouldn't put those occupational overlays under a class.  I'd leave them standalone, for the most part.  That way, you could have a fighter ninja.  Or a rogue ninja.  Or even a magic user ninja.  Or a fighter bard.  Or a magic user bard.  Etc, etc.  I think that way it opens up a lot more options and covers many more archetypes.  

YMMV of course.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

To answer the topic of the thread, I would divide the classes and subclasses as follows:

FIGHTER
-Paladin
-Blackguard
-Battlemaster

ROGUE
-Assassin
-Ranger
-Treasure Hunter

WIZARD
-Air
-Earth
-Fire
-Water

CLERIC
-Light
-Dark
-Nature


----------



## steeldragons

Lanefan said:


> Whatever happened to Fighters, Magic-Users, Clerics and Thieves?




They're all growed up. 



Lanefan said:


> I like this, though I suspect I'll be in the minority.




I suspect I'm in the minority, as well. haha. But figured I'd throw it out there anyway. 



Lanefan said:


> As for your actual list:
> So, Crusader is a War Cleric (though the name makes me think it's a reskinned Paladin), a Healer is a Life Cleric, but what is an Avenger?  Something of a Cleric-Thief cross?




For the Crusader, yes basically. What else is the "War Cleric" but a reskinned Paladin/Paladin-lite? And you got the Avenger right, or what I'm envisioning anyway, a Cleric-Thief mix for the Assassin's Creed folks..."I'm a thief/acrobat/assassin/bravo sanctioned by and//or working for the[a] church."



Lanefan said:


> My worry here is that Hero and Swashbuckler (listed below) would tread on each other's toes.




I see why that might be/you might think that. I suppose my defense or attempted justifications would be:
1) Hero is Str. + Con+ Cha and Swbkr is Str + Dex + Cha, so they should -I am imagining- play/feel somewhat differently.
2) There are only so many variations of archetype you can throw in between any two classes. The options...or "spectrum," I suppose...become (in this case): Full Warrior (Fighter) --> Warrior with a little Rogue in the mix (Hero) --> [edit: Warrior/Rogue more-or-less even split which, for me, is the Ranger /edit] --> Rogue with a little Warrior in the mix (Swashbuckler) --> Full on Rogue (Thief). 
and 3) somewhat obviously, the actual class features would be different so I would think there shouldn't be toooooo much toe stomping. 



Lanefan said:


> Necromancer should be more focused on hurting than healing. (I've never agreed with the classification of healing spells as necromantic).



Oh no. I don't either. I was just trying to be conservative and somewhat symmetrical in my wording. The necromancer's "healing" is of course, necromantic in nature in that they pull life OUT of somewhere to put some INTO whoever (usually themselves) is getting healed. 



Lanefan said:


> And is your Witch (Shaman?) kind of a Necro-Illusionist cross?



Not really no. Again, this was more trying to be consistant in my wording to get through things in a relatively short (or at least simply readable) descriptions. Witches, as I envision them, would be more of a combination of Illusionist and Druid, but some Necro-stuff in there, sure. Speaking with Dead? Summoning and Banishing spirits? Totally in a Witch's wheelhouse.



Lanefan said:


> Amusingly, "flippy flip" is the term we always use for what Monks do.



haha. Accurate.



Lanefan said:


> I really like the Investigator idea.  Good one!



Thanks!



Lanefan said:


> Still wondering if Swashbuckler and Hero are too close to being the same thing.



See above.



Lanefan said:


> These look good, though how would you differentiate Jester from a normal Bard being played chaotically?



Well, my default Bard would probably have light and medium armors, the basic "Rogues" list of weapons, their harp/instrument, inspiration dice (I would think. I would keep them), and spells.

A Jester, as I said, would get less spells, I would probably restrict them to light armors only, some tumbling movement and/or "unarmored defense" type AC bonus, maybe some juggling/thrown weapon attack? But their "defining" feature (insofar as I've bothered to think this out off the top of my head)...what did I call them?..."Jokes & Rhymes" or whatever. No inspiration dice. Not necessarily and instrument/musical magic features. They'd basically like a walking, jumping, somersaulting, juggling Cutting Words.  



Lanefan said:


> Ah, here's where the "Shaman" name ended up.



You didn't think I'd leave the poor Shaman out in the cold, did you? 



Lanefan said:


> What about a Druid type who doesn't summon at all, instead focusing on spells (particularly healing), herbcraft (along with Ranger), and shapeshifting?



Well, that sounds mostly to me like what the default Druid would be. If they want to do a little summoning, there'll be access to spells for that. I don't believe "shapeshifting should be the focus of ANY druid class, myself. But for someone who wants to make it that, that was basically behind the idea of the Beast Druid...they would be getting more shapeshifting than the normal or Land Druid...and no one says they would HAVE to summon other animals.



Lanefan said:


> While I love the Knight as a class I'm not sure there's enough in it to justify 4 classes.  One of the Questing Knight or Cavalier could easily become the default Knight, and Paladin could either move up to Cleric, replacing Crusader; or move up to Fighter replacing Hero which gets subsumed into Swashbuckler.




That's specifically why I DIDN'T put it under the cleric or fighter list. I wanted them to be more difficult to be. I also think the inherent "knight-ly" flavor of the Paladin is different enough, especially taken with the Cavalier and what other Knight (Questing Knight was kind of a place holder and I honestly have no idea how I would differentiate the Default Knight, another Knight, and a Cavalier....Paladin's easy cuz you're adding magic.

But it is one of my "always been missing from D&D" fantasy archetypes and helped/helps to balance the "second tier of classes" to balance out Magical/caster vs. Non class options: Barbarians, Knights, Rangers vs. Bards, Druids, Warlocks.



Lanefan said:


> To keep them less magic-based, suggest replacing magical trances and auras in the Warden with better tracking and herbcraft.




Well, I want a magical ranger _option._ I don't love -but don't particularly mind- the idea of magic-wielding Rangers. They always have, after all. I just don't like/want/condone a base-Ranger that is dependent on spell use. 



Lanefan said:


> Meh - Warlocks add nothing for me.



Me neither, but they are head & shoulders more interesting and unique flavor/fluff-wise than Sorcerers and I needed to incorporate them someplace. Since the Sorcerer matched up with the whole "class with Point system" group, that puts Warlocks here. 



Lanefan said:


> These are all good, though I'd love to see Wild Magus be listed under a base class rather than tertiary.



Sorry. No can do, mi amigo. 

Mages are the Base Wizard class, Warlocks are the Advanced Wizard class, Sorcerers are the "optional/Appendixed Power Point System" Wizard class. Just the way o' the world...of steeldragons.


----------



## Kinematics

The four-class design _sounds_ good, except it handwaves the issue of the subclasses we have now, and that would still be needed.

For example, expanding the sorcerer sub-tree:

Fighter
Rogue
Caster
- Wizard
- Sorcerer
-- Draconic Sorcerer
-- Shadow Sorcerer
-- Storm Sorcerer
-- Wild Mage
-- Divine Soul
- Mystic
- Warlock
Channeler

And now you have a class, a subclass, and a sub-subclass, where the top-level class is pretty much just an organizational tool.  It's neat and tidy, but it doesn't really add anything for the casual player.  A player would still be a 'sorcerer', not a 'caster', even if he recognizes he's playing one of the casting classes.

It also fails for hybrid classes, like paladin (fighter/cleric) or ranger (fighter/rogue/caster). Categorizing things is hard, and if a (sub) class falls across the boundaries, it just makes things more confusing.

Maybe you can organize the book better so that related classes are kept together, but I don't know that that's any better than just alphabetical (though certainly better than the randomness of the races).

I _would_ want to make sure that each major category is well-represented with classes.  Maybe add a fifth category (Crafter) for Artificer/Alchemist/Engineer type classes.  But I don't think there's much to be gained by changing away from the current class/subclass system, unless you're eliminating the subclasses at the same time.  And if you do that, you're gonna end up with dozens of "subclasses" for the now more succinct top-level classes, which doesn't seem a useful path to take.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Kinematics said:


> The four-class design _sounds_ good, except it handwaves the issue of the subclasses we have now, and that would still be needed.



Would it, though? If Paladin is a subclass of Fighter (for example), then it _doesn't_ necessarily follow that you need Avenger and Warden as sub-sub-classes; you could just _not_ have that degree of mechanical distinction between such closely-related concepts.


----------



## Kinematics

Saelorn said:


> Would it, though? If Paladin is a subclass of Fighter (for example), then it _doesn't_ necessarily follow that you need Avenger and Warden as sub-sub-classes; you could just _not_ have that degree of mechanical distinction between such closely-related concepts.




If you look at the thread about what new classes people want added to the game, you'll know that _not_ having them is just not feasible if you want a system that people will actually use.  You need to be able to distinguish the mechanical variations between those designs, which means, regardless of what you call them, you must have those sub-subclasses presented as part of the rules.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Lanefan said:


> This might be on to something.  Certainly an interesting approach.
> 
> Were it me I'd find a way to put Necromancer into Mage rather than Mystic; and switch Druid - which has always been a Cleric type - and Shaman....or just rename Shaman as Druid and find a different name for the primal class under Mage.
> 
> What I don't see anywhere is Monk.  Intentional?
> 
> Lanefan




Obviously we're just throwing some ideas, so the exact name or nature of the archetype needs to be defined, in the end I guess the Primal-Cleric could be the druid while giving the Primal-Mage the Witch niche. As for the Monk, I've always noticed that they share a similar theme with the battlemind: a fighter that channel psi (ki) energy inside of him to enhance his fighting skills. The Battlemind could use weapons or psi-augmented fists, use is psionic clarity power to give him prescience-like evasion skills without armor and dilate time to strike multiple times in quick burst. I think this remove the weird 80' kung-fu vibe of the Monk class while giving the Fighter a much-desired no-weapon, no-armor path.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Kinematics said:


> If you look at the thread about what new classes people want added to the game, you'll know that _not_ having them is just not feasible if you want a system that people will actually use.  You need to be able to distinguish the mechanical variations between those designs, which means, regardless of what you call them, you must have those sub-subclasses presented as part of the rules.



I strongly disagree. Whatever 6E does in terms of classes and sub-classes, people will play it until such time that they determine it's not much very fun, based on its own merits. While 4E certainly suffered some criticism for not including monks or druids in the main book, and for any number of other class concepts which could not be represented mechanically, none of those were responsible for driving away players. That was all on the mechanics.

The only thing that excessive class differentiation provides is bloat, which is ultimately what killed both 3E and 4E.


----------



## NaturalZero

The first thing i would do is toss out the 3-18 ability scores and make the actual ability score number and the modifier number the same thing. There's no reason to have 18, 16, 13, etc, on the page when 4, 3, and 1 are the numbers you use. I know, this is a class thread and this isn't a class critique but it's the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to streamlining the game.

As for class structure, I'd actually like to see things modeled on the Legend d20 system. There, each class has 3 "tracks" of abilities. A barbarian might have a "rage" track and an "ancestral spirits" track and a "weapon master" track, for example. The way multiclassing works in this paradigm is that you choose to sacrifice one of your tracks of abilities in order to replace it with a track from a different class. A wizard might swap out a track that grants direct-damage spells in order to get a fighter's martial maneuvers, or a cleric might sacrifice the healing track in order to get the druid's shapeshifting track. Certain things, like tracks that increase damage (rage, sneak attack, hunter's quarry, et al), wouldn't stack with each other, nor would the ability to command multiple types of summons (so no zombie horde + golem legion + elemental servants at the same time on the same turn) encouraging players to make characters with a broader set of abilities. Feats are present to represent dipping and changes that occur as the character evolves during the campaign, since the system won't have people dipping classes levels left and right as they progress. 

Subclassese here are just additional tracks that can be swapped into a build. Want a plant control build? That's a new track that replace one of your druid (or any class) tracks.  Need more elemental flavor? An elementalist track can take the place of one of your 3 default choices. Racial tracks could also be a thing too. Swap one of your fighter tracks out for a progression of dwarf abilities or remove a wizard track and put your special elven bladesinger subclasses in it's place.


----------



## Lanefan

NaturalZero said:


> The first thing i would do is toss out the 3-18 ability scores and make the actual ability score number and the modifier number the same thing. There's no reason to have 18, 16, 13, etc, on the page when 4, 3, and 1 are the numbers you use. I know, this is a class thread and this isn't a class critique but it's the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to streamlining the game.
> 
> As for class structure, I'd actually like to see things modeled on the Legend d20 system. There, each class has 3 "tracks" of abilities. A barbarian might have a "rage" track and an "ancestral spirits" track and a "weapon master" track, for example. The way multiclassing works in this paradigm is that you choose to sacrifice one of your tracks of abilities in order to replace it with a track from a different class. A wizard might swap out a track that grants direct-damage spells in order to get a fighter's martial maneuvers, or a cleric might sacrifice the healing track in order to get the druid's shapeshifting track. Certain things, like tracks that increase damage (rage, sneak attack, hunter's quarry, et al), wouldn't stack with each other, nor would the ability to command multiple types of summons (so no zombie horde + golem legion + elemental servants at the same time on the same turn) encouraging players to make characters with a broader set of abilities. Feats are present to represent dipping and changes that occur as the character evolves during the campaign, since the system won't have people dipping classes levels left and right as they progress.
> 
> Subclassese here are just additional tracks that can be swapped into a build. Want a plant control build? That's a new track that replace one of your druid (or any class) tracks.  Need more elemental flavor? An elementalist track can take the place of one of your 3 default choices. Racial tracks could also be a thing too. Swap one of your fighter tracks out for a progression of dwarf abilities or remove a wizard track and put your special elven bladesinger subclasses in it's place.



This sounds interesting on the surface but looking under the hood there's a big red flag as without some very careful design and likely banning a bunch of possible combinations this could get crazy unbalanced in a hurry once people figure out what combinations work best/worst.

I almost think that to push toward inter-dependent party play the philosophy wants to go the other way: to somehow promote specialization in one's own field (so each character is good at one general thing and bad at various others, thus needing the other characters to compensate), rather than encourage characters with broad ability sets.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

NaturalZero said:


> The first thing i would do is toss out the 3-18 ability scores and make the actual ability score number and the modifier number the same thing. There's no reason to have 18, 16, 13, etc, on the page when 4, 3, and 1 are the numbers you use. I know, this is a class thread and this isn't a class critique but it's the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to streamlining the game.



And that lot is its own separate can o' worms.  Here, I think I'll just stick to classes.


----------



## Eubani

NaturalZero said:


> The first thing i would do is toss out the 3-18 ability scores and make the actual ability score number and the modifier number the same thing. There's no reason to have 18, 16, 13, etc, on the page when 4, 3, and 1 are the numbers you use. I know, this is a class thread and this isn't a class critique but it's the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to streamlining the game.
> 
> As for class structure, I'd actually like to see things modeled on the Legend d20 system. There, each class has 3 "tracks" of abilities. A barbarian might have a "rage" track and an "ancestral spirits" track and a "weapon master" track, for example. The way multiclassing works in this paradigm is that you choose to sacrifice one of your tracks of abilities in order to replace it with a track from a different class. A wizard might swap out a track that grants direct-damage spells in order to get a fighter's martial maneuvers, or a cleric might sacrifice the healing track in order to get the druid's shapeshifting track. Certain things, like tracks that increase damage (rage, sneak attack, hunter's quarry, et al), wouldn't stack with each other, nor would the ability to command multiple types of summons (so no zombie horde + golem legion + elemental servants at the same time on the same turn) encouraging players to make characters with a broader set of abilities. Feats are present to represent dipping and changes that occur as the character evolves during the campaign, since the system won't have people dipping classes levels left and right as they progress.
> 
> Subclassese here are just additional tracks that can be swapped into a build. Want a plant control build? That's a new track that replace one of your druid (or any class) tracks.  Need more elemental flavor? An elementalist track can take the place of one of your 3 default choices. Racial tracks could also be a thing too. Swap one of your fighter tracks out for a progression of dwarf abilities or remove a wizard track and put your special elven bladesinger subclasses in it's place.




Sacred Cow Hamburgers like this is what makes Grognards cry...........I approve.


----------



## NaturalZero

Lanefan said:


> This sounds interesting on the surface but looking under the hood there's a big red flag as without some very careful design and likely banning a bunch of possible combinations this could get crazy unbalanced in a hurry once people figure out what combinations work best/worst.




You'd definitely want to keep things from stacking too much, just like in 5e. In the Legend system, you can't stack Sneak Attack on top of a monk's bonus damage, for example, so designing things so that basic math doesn't stack in an overpowered way would be an obvious design tenet. Using the action economy to prevent abuse could provide a universal check too. You can use your bonus/minor action to activate something special from column A or column B on your turn, but not from both columns at once, and you can only maintain one "concentration" ability at a time. Ultimately though, the issue of people finding broken combos is something you're going to have to tackle in literally every system with multiclassing and re-combinable options.



> I almost think that to push toward inter-dependent party play the philosophy wants to go the other way: to somehow promote specialization in one's own field (so each character is good at one general thing and bad at various others, thus needing the other characters to compensate), rather than encourage characters with broad ability sets.




I mean, you're not necessarily going to be THAT broad from including just 3 tracks. You're going to be more broad than someone who wants to take 3 different damage boosting tracks in order to "win" at damage-dealing because you're going to get more mileage by combining different types of abilities that are complimentary instead of overlapping. A player would be encouraged to take that special mobility track that helps during exploration and that other one with clairvoyance because you can't stack every similar ability in one conceptual silo.  I would probably design it so that most spell casters are less broad than many DnD classes, like the wizard, as well. You can take 3 different "schools" of magic at the very most, instead of cherry picking like previous edition, and each track has an opportunity cost such as giving up advanced swordplay or music buffs or healing, et al.

Say, you make a rogue-type character. You might want Sneak attack and there's a track to deals bonus damage with different debuffs. You can't stack other bonus damage from different track so you look for a mobility track that lets you dodge, move faster, evade, etc, and another one that lets you use shadow magic. You've basically built a class-construct that has the same gestalt effect as a classical DnD-styled class while still leaving out a bunch of niches like crowd control, healing, tanking, etc. You won't collect enough abilities to kill all the niches with one character.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

Lanefan said:


> This sounds interesting on the surface but looking under the hood there's a big red flag as without some very careful design and likely banning a bunch of possible combinations this could get crazy unbalanced in a hurry once people figure out what combinations work best/worst.



It reminds me of the time I tried to run a one-shot using the Generic Class variant from 3.5, where class features were just turned into feat chains, and everyone independently decided to pick up sneak attack.


----------



## Lanefan

NaturalZero said:


> You'd definitely want to keep things from stacking too much, just like in 5e. In the Legend system, you can't stack Sneak Attack on top of a monk's bonus damage, for example, so designing things so that basic math doesn't stack in an overpowered way would be an obvious design tenet. Using the action economy to prevent abuse could provide a universal check too. You can use your bonus/minor action to activate something special from column A or column B on your turn, but not from both columns at once, and you can only maintain one "concentration" ability at a time. Ultimately though, the issue of people finding broken combos is something you're going to have to tackle in literally every system with multiclassing and re-combinable options.



Yep - which is why I look to keeping combinable options to a dead minimum. 

That said, however...



> I mean, you're not necessarily going to be THAT broad from including just 3 tracks. You're going to be more broad than someone who wants to take 3 different damage boosting tracks in order to "win" at damage-dealing because you're going to get more mileage by combining different types of abilities that are complimentary instead of overlapping. A player would be encouraged to take that special mobility track that helps during exploration and that other one with clairvoyance because you can't stack every similar ability in one conceptual silo.  I would probably design it so that most spell casters are less broad than many DnD classes, like the wizard, as well. You can take 3 different "schools" of magic at the very most, instead of cherry picking like previous edition, and each track has an opportunity cost such as giving up advanced swordplay or music buffs or healing, et al.
> 
> Say, you make a rogue-type character. You might want Sneak attack and there's a track to deals bonus damage with different debuffs. You can't stack other bonus damage from different track so you look for a mobility track that lets you dodge, move faster, evade, etc, and another one that lets you use shadow magic. You've basically built a class-construct that has the same gestalt effect as a classical DnD-styled class while still leaving out a bunch of niches like crowd control, healing, tanking, etc. You won't collect enough abilities to kill all the niches with one character.



...how's this for a slight tweak to this system:

All these various tracks are put on a list and sorted into combat, exploration, and interaction - the three pillars as outlined in 5e.  Then, when generating your character you get to choose 4 tracks, with the proviso that at least one track has to come from each pillar.  So, your rogue-type example above would get its Sneak Attack track from combat, its Mobility track from exploration, and the Shadow Magic track could be turned into a crowd-control-via-persuasion track of some sort from the interaction list.  Its fourth track might be anything: a Diplomat track (interaction; backing up the persuasion aspect of this character), or an Alertness track (exploration; gives better perception, faster reaction, less chance of being caught off guard), or a Sharpshooter track (combat; gives benefits with all ranged weapons), or whatever suits the player's fancy.

Again this would take a lot of tweaking to keep things in vague balance, but it'd at least force the players to look at each pillar during roll-up instead of the more common situation where they focus solely on combat.

Lanefan


----------



## Aldarc

I can't speak to what is "best," but I can entertain an idea that I would find interesting for my own sensibilities. Adopt more of the mechanics of Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved from the 3.X era. AE offered itself as something of a variant version of D&D that floated a variety of new concepts, mechanics, and structures. And there were several things, in particular, that I liked about AE that I think that Mearls should remember from his time at Malhavoc Press. 

(1) Classes were designed primarily around broader playstyles: etc., the healer, the spell-master mage, the innate mage, the champion of a cause, the lightly-armored warrior, the heavily-armored, the wilderness warrior, the gish, the skill-master, etc. And I think that while I would want to ensure that D&D's traditions were preserved - for the sake of unity - that there is also a lot of room to reduce redundancy while also providing tremendous flexibility. I do think that we have seen this somewhat in Paizo's recent Starfinder book. For example, psionists, clerics, shamans, and druids were more or less thrown under the same umbrella of a Mystic class, which was ingenious. People already debate the redundancy of the druid as a "nature cleric," or the distinction between shamans and druids, or whether the psion should use Wisdom rather than Intellect. We could probably expand this to other classes, archetypes, and playstyles as well. 

(2) AE had a universal spell system with a lot of dials and knobs. Spells at each level are organized in terms of simple, complex, and exotic. Spells had "tags" on them that were more thematic (e.g., positive, fire, draconic, plant, etc.) and less defined by D&D's traditional schools of magic (e.g., Abjuration, Illusion, etc.). Some classes only had access to spells up to 6th level. Some classes only had access to simple spells to 9th level. One class got access to all simple and complex spells up to 9th level. Many classes got access to simple spells and complex spells with certain tags (e.g., the Greenbond got access to complex spells with the Plant and Positive Energy tags). You could weave a spell up or down for a greater or lesser effect. There were also thematic templates, similar to metamagic, that you could apply to your spells. 

I am not saying that I want AE verbatim. But I do think that its mechanics provide excellent inspiration for changes that would open up for a lot of flexibility in class and subclass design for D&D. Also, I find separate class spell lists to be somewhat redundant, and I think that AE's system can help streamline that entire process. For example, let's take the Draconic Sorcerer. One thing the above would help alleviate is being able, for example, to say that Sorcerers gain access to all simple spells. But the Draconic Sorcerer gains further access to all complex spells with the Draconic and X Energy (e.g., Fire, Lightning, Acid, Earth, etc.) tag reflective of their dragon bloodline.


----------



## steeldragons

I think the idea of altering the magic system is a good one...and leads to another tangent of conversation in the sphere of "Class structure/organization"...

The definitions and explanations of different supernatural and/or paranormal abilities and effects as "Magic" -for the use of and presuming 6e will end up with something resembling D&D's traditional structured class-based system, at least- must be delineated.

Is the "Nature-based" magic of the druids and shamans and (potentially rangers) really just "Divine" magic? What are the sub-categories/schools of Arcane magic? I'm on record saying I don't believe we need all 8 of D&D 2+e "Specializations" ...though, I will attest to 5e's wonderful way of finally making each one a distinct and useful for adventuring kind of wizard...

Illusions and enchantments, for example, go somewhat hand in hand. Do we really need an "Illusionist" and an "Enchanter" or can we just stipulate, these are the spells that fall in those categories, as a contained "school." If you want to be an "illusionist" generating images and color spraying everyone, then choose more of those spells than charms and compulsions. If you want to be a Morgan Le Faye-esque [who was known to heavily use illusions as well] or Circe-style "Enchantress," then load up on Charms and Sleep and Suggestions, rather than necessitating spell bloat to fill out the spell levels with at least a couple of options for each of 8 different kinds of magic.

To my mind, the above Illusions/Enchantments as a single facet of arcane magic is a no brainer.
Evocations and Abjurations : "Energy-based magic" creating it, controlling it, shaping and/or deleting it,  seem to go hand in hand.
Conjurations and Transmutations : "Physical- or Form-based magic" bringing items and creatures, actual physical objects, into being, altering existing physical items/forms, and/or removing traits of a given form from them.

Divination rather sits apart for its universal utility, as all magic (of any type) requires accumulating knowledge. Whether or not a devoted Diviner mage is necessary or simply giving all magic-users access to varying levels of Divination is appropriate is certainly a matter for debate. Even in the lowest magic settings around, there are soothsayers rolling their bones or reading their runes, priests making sacrifices to read the entrails or the starry sky for portents and omens. It's practically built into a society's DNA to seek out more information...divining is undoubtedly the original/first form of "formal" magical practice developed...Getting answers.

Necromancy, similarly, sits alone for it's, shall we say "Soul-based magic"...rather than simply 'I make undead minions!" Necromancy, literally "Speaking with the Dead," is itself an form of Divination. But not solely, in D&D terms, of course. It is, however, the magic of Death and necrotic energies, but also, thereby, the flip-side of the last and greatest unknown, by delving into the depths of Death and Undeath, one is intrinsically defining Life at the same time...but whatever is NOT Life is where you are delving. So, I see plenty of room for Necromancers to be rather "vampiric" in nature -drawing from life around them to fuel their own health- making them stand out all the more in D&D as the "Wizards who can Heal?!" (but you might not like how it's done  ). There is also the opening for flavors of "Blood Magic" type characters, of course the D&D tropes of the wizard pursuing lichdom, even a Dr. Frankenstein Johnny Deppian Ichabod Crane forensic anatomist type of "scientist" wizard. 

For all of this, I am now wondering if, indeed, Necromancers are required to stand alone as a sub-class (or Necromancy as a stand alone magical type/school), or if they are more appropriately shifted into the 'prestige-style-tack-on-a-few-levels-of-archetype" class. 

Thoughts?

But back to the original matter of this post, could D&D get away with defining magics as DIVINE, NATURE, and ARCANE.

With, then, each one of them broken down into limited subsets...not even the Spheres of 2e, and certainly not the cacophony of noise that were clerical spells in 3.x, but a very board, generalization and simplification of categories such as:

Mind Magic (illusions & enchantments)
Energy [or Force or Raw?] Magic (evocations & abjurations, maybe some conjurations)
Physical [or Body or Form] Magic (conjurations & transmutations, maybe some abjurations)

With Divination, then, as a catch-all for everybody's Detection spells and Scrying and, let's call it,...
"Soul" Magic (necromancy and vivomancy[healing], using necrotic and/or radiant energies, respectively, that are normally the purview of -and so, many of their spells would fall in this category- the clerics)

Does that help or hurt the dividing up of classes/subclasses? Make things simpler or more complicated? Or just distinct with no difference? [I looooathe distinctions without differences...almost as much as "change for change's sake"  ]

Thoughts on Magical structure for 6e that will, presumably, impact the way in which classes and subclasses are sorted out?


----------



## Blue

NaturalZero said:


> As for class structure, I'd actually like to see things modeled on the Legend d20 system. There, each class has 3 "tracks" of abilities. A barbarian might have a "rage" track and an "ancestral spirits" track and a "weapon master" track, for example. The way multiclassing works in this paradigm is that you choose to sacrifice one of your tracks of abilities in order to replace it with a track from a different class. A wizard might swap out a track that grants direct-damage spells in order to get a fighter's martial maneuvers, or a cleric might sacrifice the healing track in order to get the druid's shapeshifting track.




I am not familiar with Legend d20 so it might already be like this, but the second I looked at it I thought abotu the old Shadowrun priority system (or whatever it was called) where you had an A, B, C and D priorities.

So take what you said, but then pick four tracks and prioritize them at A, B, C and D which advance at different rates.

At 1st level you start with the 1st feature from Tracks A, B and C.  After that as you level up, different tracks advance.  Track A progresses 2 out of 3 levels.  Track B progresses every other level.  Track C and D progresses 2 out of 5 levels, so you end up with 2 tracks advancing every level.  

Well, technically you end up that 1 level out of 30 would only have a single advancement (that adds up to 59/30s), but even if we go back to a 30 level game, that's only 29 advances so it can still be ignored.  And while C and D advance at the same rate, C starts with an advancement at 1st so it's further down the track.


----------



## steeldragons

Blue said:


> I am not familiar with Legend d20 so it might already be like this, but the second I looked at it I thought abotu the old Shadowrun priority system (or whatever it was called) where you had an A, B, C and D priorities.
> 
> So take what you said, but then pick four tracks and prioritize them at A, B, C and D which advance at different rates.
> 
> At 1st level you start with the 1st feature from Tracks A, B and C.  After that as you level up, different tracks advance.  Track A progresses 2 out of 3 levels.  Track B progresses every other level.  Track C and D progresses 2 out of 5 levels, so you end up with 2 tracks advancing every level.
> 
> Well, technically you end up that 1 level out of 30 would only have a single advancement (that adds up to 59/30s), but even if we go back to a 30 level game, that's only 29 advances so it can still be ignored.  And while C and D advance at the same rate, C starts with an advancement at 1st so it's further down the track.




Couldn't one just simplify this further (the above and the Legend d20 suggestion sounds ridiculously complicated, as well as a huge divergence from D&D class-based core), to just say, you have 3 or 4 categories/tracks whatever of features, and at each level up, you get 2. 

Like, that's all you have to worry about at level up. Where are you putting your 2 points? 1 in A track and one in C, this time/level 2...at level 3, 1 in A track again, and one in B...both in D at 4th level level...etc...

Would seem to make for a very simple game, just placing your 2 points every level, within a game of endless options to piece together and keep track of prerequisites and such.

It would be...different.


----------



## Blue

steeldragons said:


> Necromancy, similarly, sits alone for it's, shall we say "Soul-based magic"...rather than simply 'I make undead minions!" Necromancy, literally "Speaking with the Dead," is itself an form of Divination. But not solely, in D&D terms, of course. It is, however, the magic of Death and necrotic energies, but also, thereby, the flip-side of the last and greatest unknown, by delving into the depths of Death and Undeath, one is intrinsically defining Life at the same time...but whatever is NOT Life is where you are delving. So, I see plenty of room for Necromancers to be rather "vampiric" in nature -drawing from life around them to fuel their own health- making them stand out all the more in D&D as the "Wizards who can Heal?!" (but you might not like how it's done  ). There is also the opening for flavors of "Blood Magic" type characters, of course the D&D tropes of the wizard pursuing lichdom, even a Dr. Frankenstein Johnny Deppian Ichabod Crane forensic anatomist type of "scientist" wizard.
> 
> For all of this, I am now wondering if, indeed, Necromancers are  required to stand alone as a sub-class (or Necromancy as a stand alone  magical type/school), or if they are more appropriately shifted into the  'prestige-style-tack-on-a-few-levels-of-archetype" class.




Just to play with a sacred cow, need a Necromancer be a traditional caster?  Or at least as others are casters, vs. casting rituals to raise the dead as a justification.

For example, could there be a "Pet" class, that gets flavored based on your power source and has subclasses based on if you want one big pet, a horde of minions, a team of moderately powered pets, and if they stay around or you bring them up for the occasion.

So a Pet [Nature] would be a Beastmaster (either ranger-y or druid-y), a Pet [Unlife] would be a traditional Necromancer*, some sort of artificer could have a golem or a horde of arcano-mechanical pets, and a traditional Summoner would be Pet [Arcane].

(*And a "white necromancer" would take a whole different class, so they aren't burning advancement/features on something they wouldn't sure.)

Though perhaps these work better where "Pet" is an advances-every-level sort of thing, but you also have a place for another feel - necromancers might drain life, the beastmaster might want either ranger type or druid type adders, etc.


----------



## steeldragons

Interesting...in a "thinking outside the box" thought experiment kind of way. 

I, for one, am staunchly against the incorporation of a "Pet" base class (not overly keen on them as subclasses, either, for that matter).

This is Dungeons & Dragons fantasy Table Top pencil & paper RPG, dagnabbit, not Poke-Digi-Whowutzit-mon card games or WoW CRPGs.

Now if you'll excuse me, there are some kids on my lawn...


----------



## Blue

steeldragons said:


> Couldn't one just simplify this further (the above and the Legend d20 suggestion sounds ridiculously complicated, as well as a huge divergence from D&D class-based core), to just say, you have 3 or 4 categories/tracks whatever of features, and at each level up, you get 2.
> 
> Like, that's all you have to worry about at level up. Where are you putting your 2 points? 1 in A track and one in C, this time/level 2...at level 3, 1 in A track again, and one in B...both in D at 4th level level...etc...
> 
> Would seem to make for a very simple game, just placing your 2 points every level, within a game of endless options to piece together and keep track of prerequisites and such.
> 
> It would be...different.




The issue with that is that players love to specialize.  You'd end up with just advancing two tracks to get your late-track goodies (even if it's just the same +1 bonus you got before - but now stacking), and anyone who tried to be well-rounded by advancing more of their tracks would find themselves being left behind.  (Actually, the ability to _accidentally_ make sub-optimal characters is a read design concern.)

Alternately, what the tracks give you trail off.  In which case no one will specialize and everyone will end up with about equal amounts of their four tracks, leading to a lot less differentiation between characters where they have overlap in that track.

If you are advancing tracks, I don't see them self-regulating.  I think it needs a mechanism to keep characters differently themed even with some overlap in tracks, but keeping them more-or-less balanced.


----------



## steeldragons

Blue said:


> The issue with that is that players love to specialize.  You'd end up with just advancing two tracks to get your late-track goodies (even if it's just the same +1 bonus you got before - but now stacking), and anyone who tried to be well-rounded by advancing more of their tracks would find themselves being left behind.  (Actually, the ability to _accidentally_ make sub-optimal characters is a read design concern.)
> 
> Alternately, what the tracks give you trail off.  In which case no one will specialize and everyone will end up with about equal amounts of their four tracks, leading to a lot less differentiation between characters where they have overlap in that track.
> 
> If you are advancing tracks, I don't see them self-regulating.  I think it needs a mechanism to keep characters differently themed even with some overlap in tracks, but keeping them more-or-less balanced.




Well, THAT all sounds terrible to me. Yeah, let's scrap all o' that.


----------



## mellored

Blue said:


> Just to play with a sacred cow, need a Necromancer be a traditional caster?  Or at least as others are casters, vs. casting rituals to raise the dead as a justification.
> 
> For example, could there be a "Pet" class, that gets flavored based on your power source and has subclasses based on if you want one big pet, a horde of minions, a team of moderately powered pets, and if they stay around or you bring them up for the occasion.
> 
> So a Pet [Nature] would be a Beastmaster (either ranger-y or druid-y), a Pet [Unlife] would be a traditional Necromancer*, some sort of artificer could have a golem or a horde of arcano-mechanical pets, and a traditional Summoner would be Pet [Arcane].
> 
> (*And a "white necromancer" would take a whole different class, so they aren't burning advancement/features on something they wouldn't sure.)
> 
> Though perhaps these work better where "Pet" is an advances-every-level sort of thing, but you also have a place for another feel - necromancers might drain life, the beastmaster might want either ranger type or druid type adders, etc.



I could get behind a mechanic + power source.

i.e.
Pick from at-will, pets, short rest, or long rest.
Pick from martial, divine, shadow, arcane, nature, psionic (far realm?), or ???

At-will + ordinary = fighter.
At-will + arcane = warlocks.
At-will + divine = priest.
At-will + psionic = monk.
Short rest + psionic = soul blade
Short rest + divine = paladin.
Daily + psionic = psion.
Daily + divine = cleric.
Pet + Necrotic = necromancer.
Pet + Nature = beastmaster.
etc..

Sort of like 4e's design, except you can level up each track seperately.

So you could be at-will 3/pet 3 + nature 6.   And be a barbarian fighting along side his wolves.
Or you could be pet 6 + shadow 2/divine 2/arcane 2.  And be summon undead, angles, and elemental.


----------



## Wiseblood

I would have 4 classes Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Races would add a small bonus. No subclasses, no feats, no backgrounds. Fighters get to add proficiency bonus to attack and AC no one else does. Rogues get proficiency bonus to attack and all skills no one else does. Wizards get direct damage and CC spells. Clerics get healing and buff spells. Wizards and clerics both get thematically appropriate utility spells. No invisibility, fly or teleport or create food and water. No Leomunds huts or mansions to hide from adventure in. 

Most of this is a knee jerk reaction to players taking hours to make a first level wizard(the record is 6 hours for a 1st level rogue). Then picking spells that circumvent actual adventuring or negate or supercede the abilities of other players.


----------



## jmucchiello

The only change I'd like to see is remove light and medium armor proficiency from the Cleric class and then restructure the domains so that those proficiencies are added back. Maybe have cleric get two "domains" somehow. I just want to see the non-templar cleric be something mechically sound without making them monks.


----------



## mellored

Wiseblood said:


> I would have 4 classes Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Races would add a small bonus. No subclasses, no feats, no backgrounds. Fighters get to add proficiency bonus to attack and AC no one else does. Rogues get proficiency bonus to attack and all skills no one else does. Wizards get direct damage and CC spells. Clerics get healing and buff spells. Wizards and clerics both get thematically appropriate utility spells. No invisibility, fly or teleport or create food and water. No Leomunds huts or mansions to hide from adventure in.
> 
> Most of this is a knee jerk reaction to players taking hours to make a first level wizard(the record is 6 hours for a 1st level rogue). Then picking spells that circumvent actual adventuring or negate or supercede the abilities of other players.



IMO, treat spells like magic items.

You want to cast fly.  Go find someone who has a "Tome of Flight" and get it from them (violently or otherwise).
Bargin with a devil to get "Tome of Eldrich Blast".
Quest for your god to get a "Tome of Cure Wounds".

Probably add some kind of cost to use it as well, like attunement, XP, gold, etc... to learn the spell.


Then the DM can easily control just how magical the world is.  You could have 3 copies of Tome of Fireball sitting in a corner shop with 10 copies of "Tome of Burning Hands" sitting in the bargain bin, or you could have it buried deep in an ice dragon's lair, surrounded by an army of ice giants.


----------



## Dukey

mellored said:


> Should paladin just a fighter kit?  Or is it a fighter/cleric multi-class?  Or it's own thing?  Is blackguard a paladin?
> Is assassin a rogue?  How about ninja?
> Is ranger just a wilderness?  Or rogue just a city ranger?
> Are sorcerers just a sub-class of wizard?  Are wizard and druids a sub-class of magic user?  Or are druids focused on shapechanging?
> Is everything psionic all together, or are there different types?  Is telepathy different from telekinesis?  Is soul knife psionic, or more of a monk thing?
> What's the difference between a knight and samurai?  Or are they just different names for fighter?
> Where do bards go?
> If you had full creative control, how would you sort them?



I would do it like the 2nd edition class and kit system structure as much as possible. 
That structure was very solid I think as you didnt have to preplan your feats and skills levels ahead.
Based on this structure you can redesign the classes and kits for 6e and make use of the new 6e mechanics. 

Paladin is a warrior class. Blackguard is a Paladin sub-class 
Assassin is a rogue kit, Ninja is a rogue class.
Ranger is a warrior class. Rogue is a standard class.
Sorcerer is a wizard kit. Wizard is a standard class. Druid is a priest class. Some druids can be focused more on shapechanging than others (Druid kits)
Psionicist is a standard class. Telepathy is different than telekinesis. Soul weapons are spiritual and not psionic.
Knight and Samurai are both kits of the warrior class. They use different weapons, armor and have a different philosophy. 
Bard is a rogue class.


----------



## MoonSong

Dukey said:


> I would do it like the 2nd edition class and kit system structure as much as possible.
> That structure was very solid I think as you didnt have to preplan your feats and skills levels ahead.
> Based on this structure you can redesign the classes and kits for 6e and make use of the new 6e mechanics.
> 
> Paladin is a warrior class. Blackguard is a Paladin sub-class
> Assassin is a rogue kit, Ninja is a rogue class.
> Ranger is a warrior class. Rogue is a standard class.
> Sorcerer is a wizard kit. Wizard is a standard class. Druid is a priest class. Some druids can be focused more on shapechanging than others (Druid kits)
> Psionicist is a standard class. Telepathy is different than telekinesis. Soul weapons are spiritual and not psionic.
> Knight and Samurai are both kits of the warrior class. They use different weapons, armor and have a different philosophy.
> Bard is a rogue class.




I don't get the reasoning. Why is sorcerer a wizard kit? why not a class?


----------



## Aldarc

MoonSong said:


> I don't get the reasoning. Why is sorcerer a wizard kit? why not a class?



Or why couldn't wizard and sorcerer both be kits of a broader mage class?


----------



## mellored

Same 2 track idea, but even more iconicly D&D.

Track 1: Lawful (long rest / continuous effects), Natrual (short rest), Chaoitc (at-will).
Track 2: Good (defense/healing), Neutral (control/utlitliy), Evil (damage).


Lawful + Natural = long rest control effects = wizards.
Chaotic + Evil = at-will damage = assassins.
Nature + Neutral = short rest control and utility = druid (short rest shape change).
Lawful + Good = continuous defense = paladins / life clerics.

That's 9 different "base" classes.  But you can still multi-class.

Lawful/Evil + Natural = short rest damage and defense = Barbarian.
Chaotic + Nutral/Evil = at-will damage and control = Warlock


----------



## mellored

So this...


Good
DefenseNature
Control/UtilityEvil
DamageLawful
DailyClericWizardNecromancerNeutral
Short RestPaladinDruidEvokerChaotic
At-WillFighterTacticianAssassin


----------



## Dukey

MoonSong said:


> I don't get the reasoning. Why is sorcerer a wizard kit? why not a class?



Because a sorcerer uses wizardly magic and a sorcerer is not that much different from a wizard to justify a new class. 
A different class would have their own magic, like a cleric, who uses priestly magic.


----------



## Lanefan

steeldragons said:


> But back to the original matter of this post, could D&D get away with defining magics as DIVINE, NATURE, and ARCANE.



Perhaps, but you're missing a few other types:

SONIC - the sound-based magic that Bards (and only Bards) use.  Really no subsets required, it just is what it is.
PSIONIC - magic direct from the mind rather than from a spell or device

I think "NATURE" can be absorbed into the other two (or four) as a subset. (then again, I've always seen Druids as Nature Clerics, and it'd be easy enough to come up with an arcane equivalent (but please don't call it Witch!).



> With, then, each one of them broken down into limited subsets...not even the Spheres of 2e, and certainly not the cacophony of noise that were clerical spells in 3.x, but a very board, generalization and simplification of categories such as:
> 
> Mind Magic (illusions & enchantments)
> Energy [or Force or Raw?] Magic (evocations & abjurations, maybe some conjurations)
> Physical [or Body or Form] Magic (conjurations & transmutations, maybe some abjurations)
> 
> With Divination, then, as a catch-all for everybody's Detection spells and Scrying and, let's call it,...
> "Soul" Magic (necromancy and vivomancy[healing], using necrotic and/or radiant energies, respectively, that are normally the purview of -and so, many of their spells would fall in this category- the clerics)
> 
> Does that help or hurt the dividing up of classes/subclasses? Make things simpler or more complicated? Or just distinct with no difference? [I looooathe distinctions without differences...almost as much as "change for change's sake"   ?



 Makes it more complicated, at first glance.

Other than Illusion and Necromancy which are distinct enough to support their own classes, for my part the various schools of arcane magic might as well not exist.  It's all just general arcane magic, so treat it as such.  Wizard (general arcane magic), Illusionist (illusions and a bit of general), Necromancer (necromancy and a bit of general) and Sorcerer (general but using a bunch of different prep and casting mechanics).

Divine magic is all the same - the deities just shovel it into you each morning until you're full.  Here the variances should be more by deity - each deity ideally should have a few spells of its own and have deity-specific variants on many of the rest.  Won't happen, sadly, for the practical reason that to do this properly would require a standalone Cleric book big enough to kill bears with a single blow....

Bardic sound magic needs its own entire system with ability (I don't call them spells, for Bards) lists etc., but it'd only have to be done once.

Psionic "magic" - just like Bardic: its own system, with its own ability lists.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

mellored said:


> So this...
> 
> 
> Good
> DefenseNature
> Control/UtilityEvil
> DamageLawful
> DailyClericWizardNecromancerNeutral
> Short RestPaladinDruidEvokerChaotic
> At-WillFighterTacticianAssassin




At first glance, that's a lot of casters: all the Lawfuls, 2-and-a-half out of three of the Neutrals, and as I've no idea what you mean by a "Tactician" class somewhere between 0 and 1 of the Chaotics.  Only the Fighter and Assassin are clearly non-casters - wouldn't mind seeing a couple more.


----------



## cbwjm

I tend to group bard spellcasting under arcane as "words of creation" I think of it as a very specific arcane form which can blur the line between arcane and divine magic.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app


----------



## Lanefan

Dukey said:


> Because a sorcerer uses wizardly magic and a sorcerer is not that much different from a wizard to justify a new class.
> A different class would have their own magic, like a cleric, who uses priestly magic.



Truth be told, were it up to me I'd put all divine and arcane casters on to a variant of the Sorcerer mechanics (mostly because over the years I've developed a deep dislike of pre-memorization of spells) only with more spells in their repertiore than a Sorcerer normally has.  This means the Sorcerer class as its own thing would disappear.


----------



## Dukey

Lanefan said:


> Truth be told, were it up to me I'd put all divine and arcane casters on to a variant of the Sorcerer mechanics (mostly because over the years I've developed a deep dislike of pre-memorization of spells) only with more spells in their repertiore than a Sorcerer normally has.  This means the Sorcerer class as its own thing would disappear.



I guess you can reverse it and make sorcerer the base arcane caster class if you prefer these mechanics and have the wizard with spell memorization be the kit of this class. Alternatively you can make the "no spell memorization' a skill/feat/proficiency/other mechanic to be chosen for any spellcaster.


----------



## mellored

Lanefan said:


> At first glance, that's a lot of casters: all the Lawfuls, 2-and-a-half out of three of the Neutrals, and as I've no idea what you mean by a "Tactician" class somewhere between 0 and 1 of the Chaotics.  Only the Fighter and Assassin are clearly non-casters - wouldn't mind seeing a couple more.



Yea, I agree.  3x3 is a bit restrictive.
There's on pet class for instance.  Or alchemist.  Or psionics.
And it leaves no room for future mechanic and power sources that someone can come up with.


I still kind of like the 2 track idea split with mechanic/class + theme/power source.

Maybe even 3 tracks, adding (insert name)'s idea of races be more of a thing.  Including all the half-races as well.

human 2/elf 2 + aura's 4 + arcane 4 = half-elf bard.
Giant 3/human 3 = goliath.
Elemental 3/human 3 = genasi
elf 5/mermaid 3 = sea elf

Plus new ones, like devil 3/dwarf 5 = dwarf tiefling.


----------



## Yaarel

mellored said:


> If you had full creative control, how would you sort them?




Most importantly, I would split the Wizard class into separate classes with separate spell themes.

A spellcaster that masters different kinds of magic (healing, charm, fire, etcetera) would multiclass.

Once the spell lists split up, it is easy to build concepts like Paladin that has healing, radiant, and divination magic. The Paladin would be a premade multiclass build suggesting which classes to take at which levels. But players would be free to swap in different options according to taste.

Essentially, the 'official' classes are multiclasses schedules presented in a simplified way. But advanced players can easily look under the hood, to design their own classes.


----------



## Yaarel

Actually, the Paladin also masters telepathic/enchanting mind magic, in the sense of inspiring others plus resistance to fear, and so on.


----------



## Kinematics

So, the other thread about the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard classification got me thinking, and, as I posted there, there are two separate categorizations:

1) Mechanical categories: Martial, Skill, Magic
2) Roles: Fighter, Healer, Skill-monkey, Agent of Change (more commonly referred to as Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard).

And thought about how to break the class structure down using these concepts.


Martial
Attacker — Barbarian
Defender — Paladin
Skill Monkey — Monk
Agent of Change — Fighter

Skilled
Attacker — Ranger
Defender — Druid
Skill Monkey — Rogue
Agent of Change — Bard

Magic
Attacker — Warlock
Defender — Cleric
Skill Monkey — Sorcerer
Agent of Change — Wizard


And it fits together surprisingly well, though I'm a little uncertain on Monk vs Fighter roles in the Martial section. I changed Healer to Defender, as that's the more general umbrella role being served.  The Agent of Change _should_ be the one who has the most capability to completely alter any encounter scenario due to the tools they have available. They can "change the scene".

Other than that, you have the Attacker role, whose job is to make things dead, and the Skill Monkey, who can dance around all the rules that the others have to abide by.

The Magic category classes are all full casters.  The Martial category are mostly non-casters, but could get 1/3 casting in a subclass, and can push to 1/2 caster on Paladin.  The Skilled category is flexible, covering the entire range of non, 1/3, 1/2, and full casting.

Extra Attack shows up in all the Martial classes, as well as the Skilled Attacker (Ranger), and one subclass of Bard.  Again the Skilled category shows that it's pulling things from various different areas, depending on specialty.

The mechanical category shapes what sorts of abilities are likely to show up, while the role category shapes how they are likely to be applied.  Subclasses would allow you to shape the class into a different role, or a different flavor of the role. (EG: Barbarian Totem and Ancestral Guardian subclasses tend to shift it to a Defender role.)


Anyway, taken this way, instead of just a flat, alphabetical list, it seems much easier to grasp how things would be built.  New classes would have to explicitly sit next to existing classes, competing for the same role (and thus having to justify their existence as something other than a subclass), unless you created an entirely new mechanical category.  For example, if you added a Crafting mechanic as a class category, you might be able to do something like:


Crafting
Attacker — ???
Defender — Alchemist
Skill Monkey — Engineer
Agent of Change — Artificer

Not sure what to put in the Attacker slot.  Which kind of illustrates the difficulty with this expansion approach.


So, suppose you wanted to add a Mystic class.  Does it fill a new role? Not really.  Does it add a new mechanic? Nope; it can fit under Magic.  So it has to sit next to an existing class, and prove that it is unique enough to merit existing that way, or it has to be formed as a subclass.  Honestly, it sounds like a reskinned Sorcerer (innate casting class), so I would make it a subclass or alternate implementation of Sorcerer. (Of course, that requires that the classes have to be designed to be able to accept those sorts of modifications.)


----------



## mellored

Kinematics said:


> Not sure what to put in the Attacker slot.



Grenadier: Master of gunpowder.



> Which kind of illustrates the difficulty with this expansion approach.



Yea...
There's something to be said for more free-form classes.


----------



## Caliburn101

I would like to see 6e go from character classes to archetypes, and have 'sub-classes' change to customisable ability/skill trees, allowing more nuanced and yet still balanced character development without the chewy and slightly clumsy multiclassing rules.


----------



## Lanefan

On a slightly broader level, my hope is that any sort of 6e tries to tone down the idea of mechanical representation of one's character in favour of representing it through personality and characterization.

In other words, have fewer classes (and no choose-able feats etc., just baked-in class features gained as you level up) but a lot more instruction and ideas on how to put personality and character into them so that seven different characters all operating on the same mechanical chassis (let's say, seven Warriors) are immediately recognizable as seven distinctly different characters at the table.

Lanefan


----------



## MoonSong

Aldarc said:


> Or why couldn't wizard and sorcerer both be kits of a broader mage class?




That I can live with, as long as that larger mage class was generic enough. If every third level there were scholarly features it would fail at that.



Lanefan said:


> Truth be told, were it up to me I'd put all divine and arcane casters on to a variant of the Sorcerer mechanics (mostly because over the years I've developed a deep dislike of pre-memorization of spells) only with more spells in their repertiore than a Sorcerer normally has.  This means the Sorcerer class as its own thing would disappear.




I'm not entirely against getting rid of the sorcerer, but only if that doesn't get rid of actual sorcerers in the process.  The distinction between wizard/sorcerer is more than just a mechanical one. There are lots of personal stories that are impossible (or at least extremely awkward when they clash with the mechanics) with the Wizard/Mage/MU the approach to magic of that class just calls for a certain range of PC personalities and more importantly it is voluntary. Coincidentally I've got zero interest on those while I have tons of interest on the ones that aren't.



Lanefan said:


> On a slightly broader level, my hope is that any sort of 6e tries to tone down the idea of mechanical representation of one's character in favour of representing it through personality and characterization.
> 
> In other words, have fewer classes (and no choose-able feats etc., just baked-in class features gained as you level up) but a lot more instruction and ideas on how to put personality and character into them so that seven different characters all operating on the same mechanical chassis (let's say, seven Warriors) are immediately recognizable as seven distinctly different characters at the table.
> 
> Lanefan




Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with a trio of generic classes, but they all need to be generic -and WIzard is not and has never been-


----------

