You have to remove one of these classes from the core list

Pretty sure it's normally barbarians that get axes.

I hate this dumb double standard.

In a high fantasy setting, someone using raw muscle power and martial training should be bale to equal those blessed by the gods, empowered by the elements or drawing on the forces of nature. Because why the fuck not? Imposing realistic limits on them makes literally no sense given everything else that's going on, but they keep doing it anyway.

I'm btw, I agree with scrapping fighter but for very different reasons.

>implying that herculean feats of athleticism aren't somehow high fantasy

I give the barbarian the axe because I feel he can use it most efficiently

Warlock. There's literally no reason for it to be a class instead of a wizard / sorcerer variation.

Monk.
Or sorcerer. There's already a charisma caster

Monk because I literally never ever felt inspired to creating a monk character.

Barbarian. They feel like an after thought in 5e and conceptually a Fighter could fill the same niche (and better) with an additional Archetype

Yeah it's a good class in 5e, as I said though the concept of the regular human using just muscle doesn't gel for me compared to divine hero and spiritual hulk

Thedifference is that everything else is drawing on some external power. It makes zero sense that a regular human could without assistance achieve levels of strength that are by definition inhuman without help

>herculean
People do realise that Hercules wasn't human right, like he was the son of a God that at least puts him into divine hero Territory.

Removing them from D&D 5 E?

Well the order in which i'd remove them from the ones that must go on top to the ones that have to stay as last:

1.) Bard - The jack off all trades who's a better mage than GMO mages AKA Sorcerrers. Everything it was supposed to do can be done by a Rogue archetype.

2.) Barbarian - Me smash... Really the dumbest class concept out there with no logic to justify it with any sort of logic. If you want to be a strongman just play a fighter.

3.)Paladin - should be a background not a class.

4.)Druid - Either rename it to Sage to keep it setting agnostic or if you want to force the nature aspect then it's already covered by Nature/Life cleric.

5.)Ranger - Fighter who uses nature magic... Can be reduced to a Wis based EK.

6.)Monk - Gish class where the developers are wishywashy wherter the class should be a mundane Wuxia fighter or a Xianxia wizard. Either way should be an Fighter archetype.

7.) Warlock - nothing against the class really but it attracts the worst crowd.

The ones i have nothing against are:

Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Sorcerrer
Cleric

Best reply so far

>In a high fantasy setting, someone using raw muscle power and martial training should be bale to equal those blessed by the gods, empowered by the elements or drawing on the forces of nature. Because why the fuck not? Imposing realistic limits on them makes literally no sense given everything else that's going on, but they keep doing it anyway.

Literally this
Why bring realism into a game thats not about fucking realism? You shouldn't limit someone because "you can't do that in real life", unless you limit every character by that option, at which point you shouldn't be fucking playing a High Fantasy game. If I want to rip a door off the hinges or have a boulder fight with giants, and you say I can't because it isn't realistic, meanwhile the Wizard allowed to do this shit "because magic", then you don't fucking understand what fantasy means, outside of this retarded logic spewed by bad game design (3.PF).

And to the point of getting rid of fighters, I understand where you're coming from, but by that logic Wizards and Rogues should be removed as well. Both classes are generic for a reason, as unlike the other casters and martials, they get their abilities through pure discipline, training, and study. They don't get it through divine worship, or bloodlines, or fate, or anything like that. Unlike every other class out there, they got to where they are because they worked their way to get there, and there needs to be a versatile generic option like that, because no other option has your source of power actually be hard work, its shit like "he was just born with his powers" or "he was granted them from his god because he believed really hard" or some bullshit like that, not through actually working to get to where they are.

>People do realise that Hercules wasn't human right, like he was the son of a God that at least puts him into divine hero Territory.
And just about every wizard and sorcerer in mythology is either divine in origin or half-demon or shit like that.

Remove the Monk from the core book, but include it in the psionic class book.
I trust I don't need to explain why.

Rogues aren't drawing on any external power, nor are Wizards actually.

Wizards don't just get their magic, rogues just don't become sneaky, fighters don't just become fighty, they actually have to work for their shit.

>empowered by the elements or drawing on the forces of nature.
Its high fantasy, not soft scifi

>The difference is that everything else is drawing on some external power. It makes zero sense that a regular human could without assistance achieve levels of strength that are by definition inhuman without help

Why? This is a pointless, baseless assertion. It's purely something you've imported without thinking from the real world which has no real reason to apply.

>Monks
>Psionics

No you double nigger they are a magic based class.
They should be at least an archetype for either Fighters or Wizards.

>Imposing realistic limits on them makes literally no sense given everything else that's going on, but they keep doing it anyway.
By your logic christians think moving faster than light is possible, since god can do so.

What?

This. Barbarian and Ranger should be Fighter archetypes, they're not distinct enough to be classes of their own. Possibly Monk too.

If people normal people on a fantasy setting should be able to do magical things because magic exist, by the same logic we should be able to move faster tan light since go can do it

These are the classes I keep:
Fighter
Magic User
Cleric
Thief

I also keep the following subclasses:
Paladin, Ranger, Illusionist, Druid, Assassin

Otherwise agree, but Sorcerer could easily be a Wizard variant.

That makes literally no sense what the fuck are you even talking about? That has nothing to do with the prior logic, argument or point.

I would remove everything and use point buy system

>Go can do it
How fast have you been throwing your Go board, user?

Monk. It's always either OP or complete garbage and never in-between. Even in casual hands it's really polarizing.

Wizard, but really only the Generalist wizard. Make specialists the norm, and restrict access to other spell schools.

The problem with stripping things down that much is that unless you allow archetypes and subclasses to operate very, very differently from their main class you end up with a real lack of variety.

>they are a magic based class
Is that why they have no spell slots at all in every edition?

Sorcerer or Warlock. Both are just a variation of Wizard and axing either would be no big loss.

Sorcerer. Nothing against them, but thematically they overlap so much with wizard that they could easily be relegated to a variant wizard for some splatbook, and for that reason they would be the easiest to remove. The other choises differ enough from each other that they're more unique, but (in DnD at least; and given the classes listed are the core classes from DnD 5th edition, I assume we're talking about DnD) sorcrer is another clothe-wearing arcane spellcaster with almost the same spell list as wizard, who mostly differs by having a different casting stat and being less versatile due to not being able to alter the spells they've got prepared every time they rest.

Warlocks are also another arcane caster like the wizard, but they're actually quite different from wizards. They get better armour and are less shit at fighting (although while a melee warlock is possible in 5th edition it kind of sucks), and while less powerul also need less downtime (wizard and sorcerer will be mostly useless after expending their spell slots, but warlocks can still do decent damage with cantrips, and in 5th edion also recover their spells after a short rest instead of a long one). In 5th edition in particular they also have lots of unique mechanics with the different pacts, patrons, and invocations.

I like defining Monks as Psionic. It's one of the many things 4e did right.

His way of arguing it is retarded, but I understand the principle to be he has a distinction in his head between "magical people" in fantasy and "normal people" in fantasy.

So he's saying that just because a magical person can do magical things doesn't mean it follows that a normal person can do magical things.

I'd still say PCs in a high fantasy game wouldn't qualify as "normal people" and that his argument is moot.

You said:
"Imposing realistic limits on them makes literally no sense given everything else that's going on, but they keep doing it anyway."

So you are telling that since magic exist, non magical normal people should be able to do magical stuff too, so it would be logical to allow it.

According to christians, god exist on real life and he can as some example move faster than light.
By your logic we can move faster than light and etc... since, magical beings (god) exist (at least according to christians) and can do it.

I am telling that is having realistic limits together with magical things is not an double standart, it occurs on real life (at least according to christians)

Druid

5E Druids are pointless. They aren't bad or anything, but there isn't any incentive to play one, and they don't get any features, literally its just casting. They have 8 fucking dead levels, more than any other class, land druid adds almost nothing at all, besides a few spells, and moon druid is useless after level 4.

Its boring, and you're better off playing a Nature Cleric, Transmutation Wizard, or a Ranger.

So many choices.

You could axe Druid if you had a Nature clerical domain.

You could remove Wizard or Sorcerer or Warlock. Do you need three variants on arcane magic user? With the book Warlock and the Wizard you have two different characters that weaponize being a nerd. The same fluff could be applied to either of them.

Monk is easy to drop. They never fit into any pseudo-European medieval fantasy setting with any sort of comfort.

My personal choice would be for the Bard, because I personally do not like Bards. I don't get them. Where does the Bard come from out of classic fantasy novels? Magical music and emotion manipulation is stuff that the bad guys, typically faeries, use against children in parables on the virtues of not complaining about your chores. I love the concept of a sword-fighting illusionist mage, but the part where they're required to sing at the enemy is the part where I leave the room. (Seriously, I've jumped through so many character building hoops to play what is essentially a Bard without the musical component.)

Bards are silly, is what I'm saying.

Bard/Monk/Sorcerer

Bard ain't exactly very heroic and could have his support rolled into Rogue. Most Fantasy bards are more rogueish than wandering musician. Monks are because they don't bring anything good to the table. Don't get wrong, I love the idea of killing shit barehanded, but they're mechanically unsound and thematically off base.
Sorcerer because there's not too much of an appreciable difference with Wizards.

≥≥50522733
-Wizards are using magic, they are literally drawing on an outside force and shaping it.
- Rogues I see as different to fighters, they are using cunning and intellect to find weaknesses rather than facing the threat head on, it's not saying humans are equal to the threat, they just managed to leverage it's weaknesses and outshink it.

As for keeping regular humans at human limitations being arbitrary or stupid. It really isn't because those limitations are what makes humans be humans. Without them you're not human, you're something else best way I can put it is if you don't have those limitations you're a superhuman, superman is an alien, hulk has radioactive powers and Hercules is a demi-god. None of them are pure human, batman is human and he needs to leverage every trick in the book to keep up (kinda like what I meant with the rogue).

Not him, but the point is that saying fighters are your average joe and that it's "unrealistic" for a guy to say, go full Greek hero style is a little silly in a setting where all this unrealistic shit happens regularly.

Having a martial character be exceptionally strong or skilled to put them on par with other unnatural elements shouldn't be considered bizarre.

Monks. Just make them specialized fighters or something like that.

Forgot to finish that thought, a fighter when there are paladins and barbs is like batman fighting Hercules and Hulk head on with his fists.

Barbarian or Sorcerer, as thematically they could be rolled into the Fighter or Wizard classes.

A fighter isn't Batman, he's Captain America. And he does that shit all the time.

Sorcerer, easily. It's just a worse wizard that casts from Charisma, and it does absolutely nothing really unique and of value. Metamagic is a gimmick they gave it for the class to be distinct.

On the other end, sorcerer also contributes to the most broken builds in the game. It's just a bad class.

The Greek heroes that were superb fighters were all related to gods.

If you change humans to be able to keep up with the supernatural then they cease being human, you have humans in a fantasy world for a point of reference, noticeevery race is described in relation to humans, if you move that point, they cease being human.

You're playing in a fantasy setting where humans are considered equal to races with natural magical abilities. Fantasy humanity is not the same as mundane modern earth humanity in high fantasy RPGs and it never is.

See By the same logic, wizards and sorcerers shouldn't be classes either.

I think both druid and paladin are effectively a speialization of the cleric archetype that's different enough to be treated as their own class. Effectively, they do something similar to a cleric with particular domain, but are much more focused on that one thing.

Paladin is a holy warrior, which overlaps with martial clerics, but a martial cleric is still primarily a spellcaster, while a paladin sacrifices some casting to focus into the martial stuff.

Druid and nature/life cleric share thematic similarities, but druids go more fully into the nature stufff. They get a whole different spell list instead of a few extra spells, lose the ability to wear metal armour, but gain the ability to tranform into animals and other stuff like that.
Basically, a nature domain cleric is a cleric who worships a god connected to nature. He probably still lives in a town and works at a temple, though, and generally does all the standard cleric stuff, just with different prayers and holy symbols than the cleric of Pelor next door. While a druid is is the weird guy who lives in a cave in the middle of the forest, talks to animals, and runs around naked under the full moon.

Though the argument can be made that they could be removed from core and included in some book with a bunch of variants of the core class themes, along with barbarian (berzerk fighter), ranger (innawoods fighter), and other similar variant archetypes like "mage-knight" and "sneaky mage".

What are you talking about,Wizards are using an outside force, and sorcerers aren't fully human, they are literally manipulating magic in their being from gods, dragons, elementals etc.

Because, since we're apparently drawing comparisons to mythology, they should be demigods and gods, not humans. Therefore, human wizard should not be an available choice.

I'd argue that it is the same as actual humanity, there's a reason that humans are the adaptable race, where as everything else is locked into particular stats and features.

Monk or warlock

I always find it amazing how many logical leaps people who support the martial/magic double standard capable of. They have an explanation for literally everything else no matter how much it violates their core point, yet they still can't acknowledge that superhuman martial characters are just find and are essentially a core assumption of the heroic fantasy genre.

Barbarians should be a fighter archetype, and rangers should as well. The nature of their core concepts are so ambiguous that in every edition they have changed thoroughly in terms of fluff and mechanics. Thematically, there is nothing you can do with a barbarian/ranger you can't pull off with a fighter.

Nice goal post shifting, while mythological Wizards were mostly related to outsider beings, magic in D&D is a separate beast. In other words merlin isn't necessarily a D&D wizard. Where as people referencing Hercules are treating him like a human fighter when he wasn't even human.

Magic isn't the same so how mythological Wizards/warlocks/sorcs acted, achieved their powers or what they were is irrelevant.

5e Fighters could actually be demigods like Hercules, it says specifically that Fighters are the -most- elite fighters ever, it's like comparing some fat guy with a gun to a Navy SEAL

Okay I really don't think anyone understands Warlocks at all.

You aren't a generic caster, far from it. You are quite literally the Devil's Advocate, just look at how its designed. Charisma-based, outside of Eldritch Blast almost no combat options, tons of illusion magic and debuffs, spells like Disguise Self or Silent Image as a cantrips, the recommended background being Charlatan, Darkvision, ability to understand all languages, invisibility in darkness, getting spells back after a short rest. I hear a lot of people shit on this stuff like "oh you can just cast comprehend languages" or something, however the difference with Warlocks is that they aren't wasting a spell slot on it, you don't have to worry about someone realizing you just casted a spell when you're disguised and potentially getting found out.

Its why I hate Bladelocks, because they lose out on all of the benefits of extra cantrips (more spells to abuse), or an upgraded familiar.

Warlocks are amazing and nobody fucking understands how the class works, and assumes its just Eldritch Blast spam and a blaster.

So since human can accomplish one kind of superhuman feat, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to accomplish another kind of superhuman feat.

I agree. Warlocks are a really cool class both thematically and in terms of utility. It's just a shame that some of the really awesome pact based stuff from the playtest packet didn't make it in.

Within the context of the world being able to manipulate magic isn't superhuman.

Why I'm arguing that doesn't change humanity is because it's manipulating an outside force rather than any sort of biological change.

Wizard.

Don't just clump all the magic in one class and have it be a ground for minmaxing the best spell combos. I want to play D&D not MTG

Then let's plant the goalposts firmly in one position.

If humans are capable of superhuman feats, martial characters should have no problem keeping up with spellcasters.

If humans aren't capable of superhuman feats, then spellcasters shouldn't be significantly more powerful than martial characters.

Because you say so. And what the hell does biology have to do with anything?

Monk.

I love my monks, but they don't fit in with DnD's western fantasy theme.

Then you're changing the class to basically be the fighter is to paladin as sorcerer is to wizard at which time the argument is moot as they are no longer humans without an outside influence.

Monk, honestly it feels like it should be a PBP2 or similar early-splatbook class.

It just seems so out of place to have a lord of the rings moment, "You have my sword." "And my bow." "And I dun' wan' any trabble!"

>Why I'm arguing that doesn't change humanity is because it's manipulating an outside force rather than any sort of biological change.
And my point is that being able to manipulate that outside force would require a biological change.

"It's a shame the awesome playtest stiff didn't make it into the final game" sums up 5e pretty well.

Yeah... I still miss that awesome dragon sorcerer.

Warlock.

I liked the idea that 3.5 had in that it didn't operate on the spell slot system, but rather a limited pool of free-to-use stuff. In 5e it's kind of like some bastard child of martial, caster, and skill monkey. It's a like a jack of all trades kind of class that's vastly overshadowed by the Bard.

>Within the context of the world being able to manipulate magic isn't superhuman.
You could as well say that being able to lift elephants isn't superhuman. Since you get to define what humans can do when making the game. If a specific class of humans can cast Fireball, then another class of humans can perform herculean feats of strength. Or shout broken ribs back together.

Paladin.
Not because I hate them: au contraire, I love them. I want to see paladin removed from the core list because I think it's unworthy of them. A paladin is (assuming we're talking about the legendary figures of the Matter of France) a shining example of knighthood and virtue that goes above and beyond. It should not be a base class but something that is earned, as a prestige class or a fighter path or something among those lines.

All second tier classes, like Monk, Warlock, and Sorcerer got nerfed for some reason and now their all pretty sub-par or one trick ponies. Monk is stun spam and GOTTA GO FAST, Sorcerer is blaster and shittier wizard, warlock is blaster and MASTER OF DISGUISE

Monk, monk and once more monk.

I fucking love the class myself but i never played a game with 'classical' classes that wasn't kind of western medieval fantasy and monks always did hit me somewhat asian or eastern at least.

Motherfucker are you a backhole because you are dense?

Biology is my entire argument. Literally no other class on the list fights straight out toe to toe with monstrosities and outsiders without magic of some form, whether that be arcane, divine or primal.

People try to say the rogue does but no, it leverage weakness, not fighting head on.

The disagreement is purely that some people think that just because magic exists that humans are somehow able to be stronger without magic.

I get the need to balance magic and martial, I like the fighter in 5e but as the original post I made said, from the perspective of a high fantasy world, it makes no sense for a regular human without magic even if supremely skilled to go up against divine champion and primal rager head on.

Druids
they're gay and the people who play them are gay

How about I remove dragonborn and tiefling from the core list instead? It seems like a much better deal.

So many people voting for not monk. Seriously, whats wrong with you all? Monk didn't fit in earlier editions, and it's only gotten worse with 5e. They've just become rip off's of every shonen jump anime ever.

Biology is irrelevant. It's a fantasy world. You're dragging in IRL details that are utterly pointless and acting as if it's an argument.

Druid. The only reason is I get tired of players dipping into Druid. Druidic magic shouldn't be a path a player can casually take a level in, or leave. They are supposedly devoted to life and nature; they're generally old and wise. PCs are far from it, and every time they meet a Druid they kinda disregard the seriousness of meeting one because "LOL I can shapeshift too."

Again the difference is that one is using magic, one is not.

Why is this difference so hard for people to understand. If you make the alteration so that fighters, say absorb magic to increase their strength beyond human limitations then my argument goes away.

Nah man, keep Fighter for cross-classing. Only fucktards go for pure Fighter; smart players cross-class that shit.

You have not once made anything more than an assertion as to why that has any relevance. You're just talking in circles at this point.

You'd at least have a point if the setting didn't include humans, our species the thing that we have the parameters for and judge everything else in comparison to.

I'm making the statement that humans should have the abilities of humans. Rather than abilities that are superhuman.

Magic is the outside influence here, so if a human uses magic they should be able to surpass human limitation. Meanwhile some people have made the nonsensical statement that a fighter, a human not using magic, should be able to keep up with one using magic.

And yet, as stated above, humans- a 'mundane' race- are classed as equal to races who have built in magical abilities, some of them significant amounts.

If a mundane race can compete with a magical one, a mundane fighter can compete with a magic user.

I have literally played as every one of the core classes up to level 10. If you asked me to get rid of one of them the easy winner would be the Ranger class.

He is outstripped in damage be all the martials, he is outstipped in magic by everyone else who can cast spells, his favored enemy is super shitty all in all, the beast master class is fucked and needs a desperate reworking, and all in all he is just a worse fighter (which can go eldritch knight and be a better spell caster AND fighter than the ranger).

Monks, as off putting as their are in terms of flavor (up their with tieflings and dragonborns) they are actually really fun to play as if you like doing whacky shit like running up walls for your movement, making a leaping attack to somersault onto an opponents shoulders, make your second unarmed attack to flip him over and bust his head onto the ground, and final unarmed attack (by spending a ki point) to stomp his dick so hard you literally break his balls. Using the Way of the Elements path to cause damage dealing flair to your attacks and play an over the top luchadore. Is it proper D&D fantasy? No, but if you want to run a silly game to break away from the serious stuff for a bit, it is a great choice.

A large portion of the time human fighters will be using magical gear to help give them an edge.

That and magic is pretty damn slow. People seem to forget you can only cast one spell per turn no matter what. A fighter with Great Weapon fighting and an action surge at level 6 is almost always going to be doing more direct damage to individual opponents each round of combat. The only thing really outstripping him is a Paladin (which are incredibly nasty in 5e if you go full knight's templar, smite everything non-good with them).