D&D Lead Designer wants "LESS Classes in the Core Game" 

💥 My book, Delve, is LIVE on Kickstarter! www.kickstarter.com/projects/bobworldbuilder/delve-5e-shadowdark?ref=apoi0j

I just hear “let’s sell the core game with only 3 classes Fighter, Ranger, and Wizard. Then we sell the other 9 classes in new books and content so increase sales”

I am squarely in the "5e is still missing classes" camp myself.

Bob asked for my first impressions, and literally my gut reaction was "Fewer classes in the core game so we can sell the others later"

My first thought on seeing this (and before watching) was "Yes, too many classes in the core game. Save some of them for additional supplements that we can make players pay through the nose for."

I always imagine Chris Perkins awkwardly glancing at 4e whenever someone asks him what he thinks DND should be

I think the classes need to be more distinguished. I like how playing warlock feels significantly different from playing wizard and not just wizard with less spells known and more cantrips or whatnot and I want to see more classes playing with core D&D mechanics like spellcasting and fighting.

Ngl I think a game like d&d should have a lot of classes, because the game is build around classes. More classes means more variety, less classes means less variety. If I want something with a small amount of classes, I'll play something without classes, like fate, or mutants and masterminds. A big part of d&d and similar games (like pathfinder) is the classes, and the huge number of classes is honestly something that makes me like pf2 a lot more than d&d already

The core ideas should be able to be expressed as potential Dwarf names for Snow White. Sneaky, Stabby, Spelly, Holy.

Sounds a lot like the "Shadow of the Demon Lord" approach, a former 5e designer, Robert Schwalb, developed. The 4x iconic classes (warrior, rogue, priest, wizard) you can freely combine with Sub- and Sub-subclasses of your choice. Rogue-Warlock-Diplomat, Wizard-Barbarian-Bard, Priest-Ranger-Sharpshooter are all legit in this very close to 5e system

Chris Perkins: "If I could go back in time and tell me back in 2012 that 5e wouldn't be the last edition of D&D intended to appeal to the last gasp of nostalgic fans before we all were laid off, but instead become the most popular version of D&D ever made, I would have done things differently."

"I'm Bob, Cosplaying as Professor DM"

Four class groups is also how 2E was organized. And the sorcerer was added in 3E as a halfway alternative to Vancian spell slots.

Meanwhile, at Paizo: okay people, I need three more classes each with at least 12 archetypes to choose from, I want a college textbook’s worth of detail for each archetype explaining the minor changes each one makes to the base class. And I want them on my desk in the next hour, or we’re feeding you all to the mouthing gibbers kept in the basement.

A lot of people in your poll wrote they wanted more classes instead of less. Which, the way dnd works, won’t happen unless it’s subclasses. Others swore on the quattrovirate: Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief. These are obviously the simplest version and were the archetypes of dungeon crawling. With 5E it seems many focus less on dungeon crawls and want more story-informing options.

I loved playing the 3rd edition subclasses and prestige classes. My "fighter" in RPGA was a monk/fighter/barbarian/bear warrior/warshaper. That's what I would like to see in D&D again, more flavor sub or prestige classes. The branching out into the splat books was a fanastic source of making uniquely flavored characters.

Being someone who played wayyyyy back when we only had the four classes: fighter, thief, wizard, cleric and had everything in AD&D start being a sub-class. It wasn't until years later that everything became it's own class with oodles of subs.

Rocking the Prof. DM cosplay, you just need a Deathbringer stand-in now

I've wanted to develop some sort of 'free-form' leveling system, where different Features were available at different levels, and every time you level you could chose a level appropriate Feature. So it would be mix and match to a degree.

In fairness, Second edition had several of what are currently their own classes as sub classes of the main four. Ranger and Paladin were subsets of Figher, while Druid was a subset of Cleric.

The problem with 5e Sorcerers and Wizards is that they changed the sorcerer so much from what it was back in 3.x that it now basically IS just another wizard. Before they actually had major differences and a reason for picking them over Wizards, now there is not much too it except for a few interesting subclasses. Wizards are meant to be your "I only have limited spells but can prepare for anything based on my extensive spell book" class that is versatile but needs advanced information. Sorcerers are meant to be the "I can cast for days but my choices are limited and unchanging" blaster style class suited more for combat or one specialised role. Because 4e failed so hard, they fell back to 3.x but tried to make the game much more new player friendly. In doing so they have dumbed down certain classes to the extent that they seem to be only subclasses of others now.

As someone who came from 3.5 and Pathfinder primarily, I prefer the massive hodgepodge of classes offered by those systems. It's one thing to have a subclass of Sorcerer dedicated to runes, but it's a different feeling entirely to have an entire class that's balanced around the concept. However, I do appreciate that the designers want to keep the game simple enough to feel accessible to new players. It just feels like an unfair bastardization of the concepts of a psychic or blood magic when it's just flavor text and a couple of abilities on top of another class.

First, the 4 basic classes are enough for the starter set because it is saying “here’s dnd the game” and it functions more like a board game. Second, the main issue I have with this statement is that it would likely cut classes out of the PLAYERS HANDBOOK which is supposed to function as a textbook resource for everything a player needs to play DnD and then some. (Side note, would love to just fold XGE and TCE into the PHB) And finally, this feels like a first step to locking classes behind paywalls by making them available only in adventure modules or secondary resources.

I totally agree. I think that many classes should rightly be categorized as other things. It’s not getting rid of them, it’s restructuring them. I’m working on a campaign that does this. I have made four base classes, and about a dozen specialty classes. Each time you level a specialty class, it also levels the associated base class. The base class has innate abilities that are common between the specialties, and the specialities have abilities that are tied to specific gear. The idea is that you give lots of levels to the players and even give them a free level in most classes to encourage multiclassing. To balance it out, the special abilities are tied to the gear of that class. So if I’m a ninja, I can do a bunch of cool ninja abilities, but not if I’m wearing heavy armor. As a necromancies i have lots of spells available to me, but not unless I have an appropriate wand or staff. I haven’t play tested it yet, but one of the reasons I got fed up with d&d os that leveling and classes felt awkward, boring, and overwhelming. I never multiclass, because if it takes five levels in this and three levels in that, and you only end up playing to level 10, you spent the entire campaign trying to become good. I honestly couldn’t care less what hasbro/wotc/d&d do, I’m over them and much more excited at all of the independent creative work available now.

Oh Bob. Bob, Bob, Bob. The 1e and 2e magic-user was a completely different kind of character than the 5e...whatever. 4 HP. 1 spell. No cantrips...AND WE WERE HAPPY!

First Impression: I could imagine a more flexible character creation process where you select a subclass skill tree and that dictates things like hit die size, proficiency, spell list type (arcane, divine etc). Perhaps it's point based and/or prerequisite based so you could have more flexibility in mixing and matching special skills? While it would reduce the "Class" count, it would probably make character creation more complicated to maintain the same options.

For me, I understand that logically a bunch of the classes have a similar base flavour to them, but it's more about exploring chunky game mechanics. For example, if a barbarian was a fighter subclass, you'd have one subclass that rages, withstands more damage, deals extra damage etc. However, rage is such a fun and invocative mechanic that I think it deserves to be a class of it's own, and to explored further. This way, you can have various subclasses that all explore the rage mechanic in different ways! (Totem for varied animal themed rages, giant for growth in rage, wild magic for crazy magical bursts of energy etc.). More classes = more branches that can support their own leaves of unique gameplay flavour, so I'm always down for more base classes to explore ;P Also, it means if you have a group of friends that all want to be magic users, they can end up with totally different abilities and themes, and not just have the same base-class of "Magic-user".

I don't really think it matters much if someone gets confused about certain classes like wizard and sorcerer, they could just learn the distinction in D&D, and if that prevents them from playing D&D then they weren't really interested in the first place.

Personally, I think the issue with 5e classes is that they aren't distinctive enough in both mechanics and flavoring, hence why Perkins feels the urge to condense or cut out some. My game theory is that the reason why the Artificer is yearned by the community to be a core class is because it fills a niche it that hasn't been covered at all by any other class. The Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, and Fighter all go up to the enemy and hit; the Cleric, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard all cast spells. Meanwhile the Artificer can create magic items; the Dancer from Indestructoboy specializes in the Help Action; the Gunslinger from HeavyArms literally specializes in firearms. D&D 5e has a lot of gaps to fill in terms of classes, and once they condense the samey samey ones, I think there'll then be room for more distinctive ones.

The 12 core classes in 5E really do highlight how they were developed over the years in past systems. Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard are super basic, super archetypal, and distilled as much as possible. Everything else could be seen as a subcategory of one of those four, like a Barbarian being a kind of Fighter or a Bard being a kind of Rogue, because that's what they were in past editions. When you stop and think about it, the existence of core classes that are specialized clarifications of other core classss is a really awkward thing.

I’d enjoy a world where a base class was just the mechanical framework (like, your spell slots, main stats, AC avenue, base damage rotation, etc) and the subclass/other options added in 80% of the lore-centric abilities like Barbarian Rage, the ability to turn into an animal with Wild Shape, Thieves Cant, paladin auras/evil detection, etc. Saying “I want to play the character that attacks many times in a turn in melee combat” shouldn’t mandatorily come with a mysticism vibe, the ability to run up a wall, and an immunity to poison.

In my opinion dnd already its a complicated game just for the math required to play at first but after people get use to the mechanics its actually the opposite, we crave new and more complex things Thats why theres a lot of homebrew out there

I love all Bob World Builder videos! When I started playing D&D we had 4 classes and we liked it! We loved it! Ok, that aside, a lot of options for a game tend to bog things down. AD&D introduced sub-classes and that began the downward spiral of complexity and min-maxing. A skip back to simpler times is certainly in order.

Okay, first impression before watching the full video since you asked. This just makes me want to learn and get used to playing pathfinder so much more. A big thing that I love about pathfinder is all the classes and all the cool sub classes you can choose. And that genuinely one of things I dislike about 5e is how limited in classes it is and how uninspired so many of the subclasses are. If I want fewer classes then I’ll play 2e D&D. This just feels like they want you to sell you less product at the same price then charge you for more splat books.

I can see as few as three or four classes making sense if there is a massive amount of flexibility in how you build, both for mechanics and theme. But what I suspect would happen is four classes, with no build choice either. The result being 90% of archetypes are impossible to make.

It's been almost a day, but I honestly think the more classes, the better. And that boils down to one thing; customization. Sure, you could have like, paladins, fighters, rangers shoved into one Warrior class each as subclasses, but then how would you combine, say, a Gloomstalker with an Echo Knight? Or give an Eldritch Knight smite? DnD multiclassing doesn't allow for same-subclass multiclassing, and because of that, I argue that the more classes there are, the more versatile character builds can be. Especially when compared to systems like Pathfinder, DnD characters are limited as is in their customization.

Given how subclasses work, one could say that dnd has well over 50 classes in the game - since each subclass provides unique mechanics and concepts. Less classes doesn't mean less concepts, it could just as easily mean fewer initial mechanical choices, but still with a broad array of sub-choices to make. "Class" is a fluid concept and it doesnt just have to mean what we currently understand it to mean in the one version (5e) of one ttrpg (Dungeons and Dragons)

I try to explain Wizard and Sorcerer (perhaps confusingly because of the Bard) with a music analogy: A Wizard is like a classically trained musician. They may have had a proclivity toward magic (or music), and so they went to school for it, learned how to read music, learned chords and scales and progressions. A sorcerer is someone who self taught on an instrument. They can't read sheet music and can maybe barely read a tab. Music is a feeling for them, it comes naturally. They probably spend a ton of their time "woodshedding," that is practicing and getting a feel for the guitar by using it.

I feel that having a lot of classes is kinda important for a game like 5e where there's very little room for customization after initial character creation outside of multiclassing. I could see the case for there being fewer, but I'd want the classes that do exist to have a lot more options as they progress, even more so than I already do, in order to make up for the removal of options

Honestly, doing it like 3.5 could work - fewer *core* classes, and additional *base* classes in later supplements, like the Complete series' various base classes.

I kind of agree with him. Worlds Without Number does something similar, only having 3.5 base classes (warrior, expert, mage, half-mage), with multiclassing (half and half) there to allow for more character concepts and flexibility, and the mage getting certain archetypes to allow for even more. The expanded game also has a number of extra classes that can't be recreated with the base ones, that allow for shapeshifting, mind control, animal companions, divine blessings, or swashbuckling.

removing classes is just going to have one of two outcomes: either it's going to reduce the amount of customisation and detail possible for themes OR it's going to make actually building and playing a class that much more complex, so sure while the names might be obtuse on the surface but you only need a short 1-2 line summary to quickly clarify things: *Wizard:* a caster who researched their vast and versatile repitour of problem solving spells they can swap out from day to day with the help of their spellbook. *Sorcerer:* a caster with a shorter list of spells who knows their innate magic by heart and knows how to twist and bend the rules of how they use them with their metamagic.

As an old school player who goes all the way back, in 1e we had fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief. But we also had the fighter subclasses of paladin and ranger, cleric subclasses of druid and monk, magic-user subclass of illusionist, and thief subclasses of assassin and bard. That's eleven. So we've had about this many classes since the 1970s. We just arranged them a little differently. If you go all the way back to the Chainmail expansion in '74, we only had three classes (fighter, cleric, magic-user), but nobody goes back that far anymore.

I'd just like to see Psionics as real, actual classes that don't use spell slots. Bring back 3.5 Psionics!

If nothing else, subclasses being the wild west and endlessly customizable is something I can fully get behind. My group and I now have customized subclasses for nearly every PC in our party during our major campaigns, and building them together to do cool things that fit our characters perfectly is a huge part of the fun. That way, even fellow players get surprised as we level up and discover new abilities.

Hmm.. less classes.. say Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Thief? 🤔 I'd personally say have 4 Archetypes, and then sub-types to further define them in ways that aren't full classes, but give you some of the flavor. Most of the classes are really multiclass or the differences were never enough to really warrant a different type. I haven't played 5e but played earlier editions for years and there never should have been a real difference between a "Wizard" and "Sorcerer". The difference should be a thematic one that is campaign-specific (e.g. maybe I do want my wizard to just know his spells, that's a character hook and could be a campaign plot as to just why I'm like that).

I think the issue is that more classes do offer balancing issues and more work with each release. However tucking away a former whole class as just a subclass just feels like we’re losing depth. Having Barbarian suddenly just be a subclass of fighter means we have to settle on some certain features but lose so many aspects that the expanded subclasses would have offered. Had it been done prior to release it would probably feel fine but now it just feels like a net loss if they went that direction.

One of the things I love about B/X D&D is how easy it is to make your own classes. I think my current count is 17, including a Witch, a Cambion, an Apsara, and a Dwarven Brewmistress.

first impression reaction: it's hard not to assume the question of "how many classes should be in the core game?" is actually "how many of the classes should we put behind an extra paywall?"

Happy to see Shadow of the Demon Lord mentioned in comments. The approach Robert Schwalb took with his last and newest systems- Shadow of the Weird Wizard is so nice and approachable while having more and more depth the deeper you go. There's three types of classes, Novice (lvls 1, 2 and 5) Expert (3, 4, 6 and 9) and Master (7, 8 an 10 where the game caps). Novice classes are simple and present you with the core fantasy of the class, then you build on with a choice of Expert class that can expand on your existing options or give you wholly new abilities. Master class finally lets you take on significantly more powerful abilities on top of that. None of the classes have any pre-requisites, instead you build your own character through picking those puzzle pieces when you reach those milestones. Plus the system is a significantly more streamlined version of a d20 fantasy game with much of the ignored leftovers from previous DnD editions removed to make a game with a lot of depth and an approachable foundation. Big recommend from me

just put artificer as a core class :(

I wasn't confused at all when I started playing d&d (which was all the classes of 3.5e at once). I think people tend to heavily underestimate how much your average person outside of D&D understands.

I would say that Warlocks are basically a subclass of Clerics that grants limited access to arcane spells.

Main question: will Professor DM cosplay a Bob next week?!

I think this is absolutely correct. The classes should cover broad archetypes, and all the nitty gritty details of how the character works should be hammered out in subclasses and other choices. It makes it easier to get into for people who don't know the system, while simultaneously making it more interesting for veterans who are into build making when they get to paint in broad strokes early in the process instead of getting locked into specific progression paths right from the get go.

Something I think MCDM is doing really well is defining “kits” or fighting styles for builds being separate from classes, so to avoid multi-classing you can mix and match your preferred fighting style with an archetype. This solves a lot of issues around the difference between say a magic user and the source of their power; or a fighter and a paladin who both use a longsword but determine their damage based on martial prowess vs faith. Defining what flavor the character is dipping and how they fight is the crux of what a “class” means for the sake of the fiction. I hope 5.5e will allow more customization rather than less.

This is why D&D already has so much homebrew

My first impression is pretty much- I agree. Greater focus on fewer classes to begin with might have helped define and balance those classes against each other. Maybe 5 or 6 classes, from level 1-10 in the Player's Handbook, and then addition classes and material for higher level play in later source books.

I grew up with DnD, and have seen the mechanics get more elegant over time, but building a character can be overwhelming. When making a character, I have a few ideas of what to do, and then I need to spend hours and hours exploring options, checking prereqs for feats, and figuring out what spells or abilities I'll have when so I can execute on the character idea before 15th level. I know not all of this is necessary, but it feels like you are making the most core decisions on your characters when you know the least about the game (DnD as a whole or even just the current campaign). I wish there were fewer starting points, and more ability to build out your character as you played. And once you've done all that a few times and have a good feel for it, you can just start with higher level characters.

They did try once to merge classes. D&D 4th edition, where palading and bard were basically same class just renamed effects. I'd rather they go to prestige class route than try that again. This can be done well, but I doubt they can.

Makes sense from a business perspective. Give customers 3 classes in the core book and place the other 9 pre-existing classes behind a $60 pay wall for each class in each suplemental book...

I like the idea of a rogue-like rpg were your characters have to go out into the world and seize power for themselves. Through investigation, exploration and networking you can discover different sources of power with which you can augment your character and unlock new options. There would be more of an emphasis on the social aspect of bartering for power from more powerful beings, usurping power from weaker sources, forming bonds for mutual benefit, etc I want your power to be personal and the relationship you have with it to shape the narrative. If you're a "holy" warrior of some deity you actually have to uphold and advance their portfolio. If you make a pact with Demons it will extract a price. Your choices in one campaign should echo on into the future of your setting, adding weight to the decision you and your friends make.

Player: "More options, more better!" DM: "I have to remember how much!?!"

I mean it's basically what they did with sidekicks. Just three classes: expert (bard/rogue), spellcaster (sorcerer/druid/cleric/wizard/warlock/bard) and warrior (fighter) ranger, monk, barbarian, paladin

I actually was thinking about how complicated D&D is nowadays, it makes it hard for new players to jump in. So literally this morning I started writing out a more free-ended, simple T.T.R.P.G. system. Then I got home and saw this video and made me want to go through with it even more.

Professor World Builder out here giving us a fun lecture. I like the Dungeon Dudes Apothecary class which hits that doctor type of class especially with one subclass focused on a psychological side.

Bob, man, your necktie is killing me. 😂

Second Edition had four classes, and a fifth later introduced. There were subclasses of each class, but only four classes, Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue (and Psionicist), and kits for each subclass. Then, Skills and Powers then introduced build-a-bear rules for each of the four classes. So, it's not like this is even a foreign concept to D&D--there was a time where it literally was the game.

Cleric (healer/divine caster), Fighter (defender), Rogue (striker/thief skills), and Wizard (arcane caster) is all you really need. All other classes derive from them.

Love the business casual look Bob, along with the cool, smooth jazz music in the background. Smooth Bob, very Smooth Bob indeed. ❤

Babe wake up we gotta video from the notorious B.O.B.

A lot of classes could be combined and condensed down. Something like: Wildmen (Druid+Ranger) Arcanist (Sorc+Wiz+Warlock) Champion (Cleric+Paladin) Warrior (Fighter+Barbarian+Monk) Trickster (Rogue+Bard) Or hell, pull a Shadow of the Demon Lord and make the game more about building your own 'class' from components.

I totally am on board with the whole 12 is too many classes. I'd cut it down to one representing each ability score. Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Cleric, Bard. Barbarian rage kind of makes them fit for being the Constitution but I like Rangers and would lean in on the survivalist aspects. I'd definitely keep the other classes, but label them optional, including the Artificer who can hang out in an appendix with the Paladin and Warlock at the back of the PHB, where everybody can use them but they're not part of the starter options. In any case, I'd ask players to understand clerics before I hand them warlocks and druids, and understand fighters before barbarian is an option on the table.

Cosplaying as Professor DM 😂

This isn’t Dungeon Craft??? I was totally fooled.

I'm the sort of person who loves having an absurd level of options and complexity in my games right from the start, but I very much recognize that that isn't for everyone, and for most new players who aren't super excited to hyper focus on every minute detail of the different classes, subclasses, spells and features, having too many options, especially ones that have overlap, can be overwhelming and can add an unnecessary perceived barrier to entry. I think having a handful of core, very distinct classes be the baseline and then having options to add in more complexity in the core rules would be a good approach, as, if they removed them from core rules entirely, that's likely just gonna end up with needing to buy even more books just to get back stuff we already had.

(Pauses at 0:41) First impression: honestly kinda makes sense. RPGs are generally able to compress player roles down to a core of four, whether you want to call them defender/striker/controller/leader, tank/dps/controller/healer, or whatever. Video games and certain TTRPG systems even try to compress it down to three, I've yet to see one without gaps (OD&D had no rogue equivalent, and games with a fighter/thief/mage trio either ignore the "divine caster" archetype entirely, or spread the mage role thin to cover both). I'm actually very fond of both 4e's "power source/role" and 5e's "class/subclass" concepts. I can even see it making sense from a balancing and new player-onboarding perspective. That said, while it makes pure mechanical sense, and it's definitely worthwhile to avoid the base class bloat of (especially) 3.5e, compressing down that far would hurt spectacularly fluff-wise. Fighters and Paladins can fill similar mechanical roles, and you could theoretically make a paladin subclass using a fighter chassis, but it would leave a _lot_ on the table as far as character concept and development. That's why I'm still sad that the Mystic class fell through: I like the Sorcerer/Fighter/Rogue subclasses we got, but there's so much missing from older concepts of Psionics. (Watches rest of video) Okay, apparently I hit the nail on the head, for the most part. That said, my opinion is unchanged. I don't get how new player confusion is _that_ much of an issue - do players routinely just look at character class names, and decide to play an RPG based on that? I'm also not really convinced by the "subclass for specific environs" idea. Unless it's for a one-shot or a genuinely massive environment (like underwater, or the Underdark), you'd have to walk a tightrope not making it broadly-enough applicable that it loses flavor, or focusing so much it feels useless anywhere else. I feel like we tried that with the Ranger, and the result was more (to paraphrase Brandes Stoddard) "pick the environments where you stop being a Ranger." I guess I'm happy that the designers are taking the "if it ain't broke" approach, though.

LOL, cosplaying Professor DM. I was wondering what the jacket was all about.

i think it makes sense, plenty of the classes overlap a lot. i also don’t think that’s a bad thing, even though it can be more bloat imo it just adds more player expression. if steel defender didn’t exist i couldn’t really make my current character in any recognizable sense. she’s artificer through and through

In the end I'd think it's better to go to _five_ supra-classes: Brute, Sniper, Scholar, Guide, and Face. From there they branch out, and develop subclasses that can be mixed and matched to how a player wants to play. So the Brute would have a path for Fighter and a path for Barbarian. The player could purely follow one, or multiclass between them. Ideally, the player shouldn't have to consider critical milestones (like Extra Attack) if they choose to multiclass. Then as many subclasses as anyone wants can spin off of the supra-class. Want a Druid-flavoured line in the Sniper? Now you have a Ranger. Unless you decide to add a fighting line to your Guide, and that makes a more spellcasting sort of Ranger. Or maybe you want a melee Ranger under the Brute.

Personally, I'd like to see something like a "Basic Rulebook" with 5 Core Classes (Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard). Give these 5 Classes a diverse selection of subclasses (maybe 3 or 4). Even the amount of Races could be trimmed down to 5 (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Dragonborn). Afterwards, Wizards of the Coast could release a "Deluxe Rulebook" with more character class options and playable races.

“I hate using definitions as evidenced “ proceeds to immediately use definitions as evidence

I've found core 5E classes very limiting. It is hard to create a character you want. 3.5E was more flexible.

And so history repeats itself

Hell yes! Marie Kondo my PHB! Goodbye sorcerer, warlock, Barbarian! And no thank you artificer! Let's get rid of dragonborn and tieflings while we're at it!

I think youre failing to notice that four core classes included with the base game means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except that the other eight core classes will be pay walled separately.

As always, great video. You are a kind and peaceful input to my day in a world of such anxiety and chaos. Thank you.

1) They did this with things like “Specialist” and “Magic User”… and it sounds like 2E, which is actually genius.

D&D is a game where the DM has a lot of control over what content is provided to its players. I think more options available is better and allows for the DM to narrow down the scope as needed (newer players, specific settings, etc.). Also, like, new players are completely capable of understanding the difference of warlock, wizard and sorcerer. They understand the difference of a barbarian or fighter. Let's give people some credit, as these are, in theory, the people we'll be playing with.

Cosplaying as Professor DM! I love it! Was that the +1 jacket of insight you were wearing?

As someone who DMs for Middle School Students honestly the base four classes are all you really need. It gets to complicated when you have 3 different players who all can do similar things but work mechanically different. I honestly think next year DND club will actually just be shadowdark club because how easy my life has gotten since that book came out is crazy. Everything is so simple so straight forward. I only have an hour each week to play with my students so worrying about rules and stopping every five seconds for my students to search their character sheet for 1 of the billion things on that sheet takes up a lot of time. The next iteration of dnd should honestly have less classes, easier to understand graphics like stat blocks, and do away any other bloat.

As someone who introduces a lot of new players to D&D, I agree with Perkins on this. Fewer classes, with more clearly delineated flavor and mechanics, is far easier for new players to understand and choose from, which gets them playing quicker. I see character creation as an obstacle to playing the actual game, and my goal is to get them through it as fast as possible. Not getting bogged down weighing options and splitting hairs. There's a bit of pop psychology (not exactly scientifically sound, but still a popular and useful rule of thumb) that says human short-term memory can hold about 7±2 items. When a person is making a decision, having more than 5-9 choices means they can't hold all of them in their head at once, which leads to analysis paralysis. I think it should be a core part of the game design to limit options to this more manageable level, balanced out by more frequent opportunities to make those decisions. I don't think classes need to be cut all the way back to four, there's a few distinct concepts (paladin, druid, ranger) that aren't easily reduced to one of the Core 4, but ~7 options would be far smoother than 12-13. Additional options can be added at later levels like subclasses, be optional like feats, or have literal buy-in like purchasing new books. It lets the core game be lean and accessible, with more complexity only for players who want it.

As a 4e fan, 5e's obsession with refusing to add new classes is infuriating. I hate seeing classes I loved chopped up and turned into half-baked subclasses. Avenger and Warden are notable examples. Now he wants to make it even worse?

I would agree with Chris. Particularly on Wizard/Sorcerer where the mechanical difference kinda evaporated from 3e to 5e.

I think he's right. I never really thought about it, and I don't have a problem with extra classes, but I don't feel the game needs them. In fact, I can pare it down to three classes. From a game developer's perspective, here's how I'd design the classes: 1. Warrior - The basic class for physical combatants. From here, the player has options to build their warrior for specific themes leading into the fighter, barbarian, or brawler types of warrior class, etc. 2. Magician - From here, the player would have the option to build as a cleric, wizard, sorcerer, or druid. 3. Rogue - Build out to the thief, ninja, or swashbuckler. From here, in the rules, I'd discuss multi-classing options: Ranger - Magician built into druid multi-classed with rogue. Bard - More general magician, also multi-classed with rogue. Paladin - Magician built into cleric multi-classed with Warrior built into fighter. So, when does multi-classing begin? Well, if you're designing the game for this, there's no reason to force the player to wait until they've leveled up. Instead, classes should have abilities that are clearly scored with a point system. You have to be a primary class. You have a set amount of points to build your character with. A certain amount of those points must be spent on abilities from the primary class. To multi-class, simply spend the remaining points on abilities from another class.

Obviously there should be fewer. Level 1: you choose from Warrior, Healer, Mage, and Expert. Level 3: access to subclasses. Warrior: choose Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, Monk. Healer: Cleric, Druid. Mage: Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer. Expert: Ranger, Rogue, Bard, Artificer. Level 5::specialization. Paladin: choose your oath. Warlock: choose your pact. etc.

Initial thought: heck ya! Step back main classes and then bring back feats or features (or sub classes) as a way to module out the character and also add BUILDing back into the leveling process. Even though 5e has "builds" still it just feels like leveling up is more like a long car ride with occasional stops instead of meaningful choices. I site a step beyond just subclasses. I vote actually breaking subclasses into pieces so each level you can choose things. Obviously keeping magic stuff with wizard class and fighty stuff with fighter main class.

Bastards are trying to steal my Artificer again >_>

I'd like to see 12 core classes divided equally between martial and spellcasters with a martial and a spellcaster for each core stat. Then character creation is simplified. Do you want to be a martial or spellcaster? Which of the 6 stats do you want to be your main stat? You want a martial that is strong, cool that is the fighter. You want a martial that is charming that is the paladin. You want a spellcaster that is intelligent, here's the wizard. The charisma casters would have to be spread out to the other stats but it would do a lot to make the classes feel thematically and mechanically different. I'd then have subclasses for each be focused on a character's secondary stat. It would give a lot of focus to creating characters with unique stat blocks and make sure that each class started with the same amount of subclasses.

When it comes to the "core classes" I've always had the mindset that sometimes less is more. In the simplest terms, if a person wants to play a "Mighty Barbarian," they could play a Fighter class, but just role play the Fighter as a savage warrior-type living in the wilds. That said, I do believe the Bard definitely needs to be a "Core Class." So five core classes all together.