How to do Speech in TTRPGs (without dice!)

I don't like rolling for speech. This post explains why, how to do the alternative, and why you might like the alternative better than rolling for speech too! There are different ways to play a TTRPG. One approach is called player skill over character skill (or player-skill-forward) where the players rely on their own intelligence, wisdom, charisma, luck, skills, creativity, etc., rather than use the characters abilities and skills and etc. I personally believe that the opposite approach of character skill over player skill is for video games, and I personally do not want it in my TTRPGs.

First, I'm going to start with some arguments, then I'm going to explain some general concepts, then I'm going to instruct you on how to talk to people.

Why Player Skill Over Character Skill?

First, some arguments for why you would have the players rely on their own speech skills rather than rely on their character's speech skills and the games mechanics.

1. Personal preference. This is supported by the 2014 5e DMG, page 236.

2. The game is about portraying a character. I don't want the game's rules or the designers ideas of game balance to tell me how to portray my character. It's my character, I can handle that. Outside of a computer game, a personality is not something that needs to be made into a statistic and then balanced against other abilities.

3. Incentive and disincentive. I want to engage with social interaction using my skill, and I don't want to be penalized for my character's poor skills. Similarly, I don't want players holding back on engagement with roleplay because they are relying on their characters high skill to do all the work. Players also tend to elect a single character as the face of the group and they all avoid participation.

4. Game mechanics and rules are not the medium of the game, conversation is. Mechanics and rules are for simulating what we cannot do at the table. In other words, we don't need to simulate conversation because we can actually have those. Excessive mechanics and rules make the game more complex without necessarily improving the game.

5. Disengaging from the emerging narrative to resolve something with dice and mechanics, and then re-engaging with narrative is immersion breaking and slows the pacing of the game. In other words, it's not fun. There's too much rolling dice in games. Every time you stop a conversation to roll a die, the story forgets what it was doing.

6. With skill / ability rolls, we tend to roll a die to resolve uncertainty (id est when the GM can't make a ruling to determine success or failure). The fact is that if the speech reasonably satisfies the NPCs needs and does not raise any objections, the speech should succeed and there should be no uncertainty. Adding dice to such rolls is arbitrary and the outcomes feel contrived. That's not fun to play or narratively satisfying. If the NPC already agrees with you, the dice don't get a vote.

7. If you're not good at speech, a TTRPG is an excellent situation for learning that skill! You can get practice here without real world consequences. It's an educational component of a TTRPG.

8. Demystification of charm. Charm is not how you talk to people; intelligence is. In GURPS for example, all speech skills are related to intelligence, not the personality. Why? First, communication is about ideas. You need some intelligence to communicate, and you need high intelligence to communicate complexity. Second, because what you communicate is the substance, and how you say it is the style. Substance beats style. If you have a crap idea but pretty words and charm, people are still going to reject the idea. For example, I went to the mall and someone tried to sell me a product that keeps the bottoms of my shoes white. I think my face said it all and the salesman shrank away in shame because deep down he knew he was selling a crap idea.

General Concepts

Here are general concepts for Speech and how to think about them from a player skill over character skill mindset. Think of this as the glossary but better. You're probably familiar with them some of the ideas. I think if you read this, you'll have a high-level overview of game concepts and practical application of them.

1. In-Character means speaking as if intending to portray your character. You can use your own voice and accent or a different one. Speak what the character says verbatim. Out-of-character means speaking as if not intending to portray the character. Alternatively, out-of-character is breaking character. You may either speak in-character, or you may describe out-of-character what your character says and how, including paraphrasing what they say, as long as the description is vivid enough for the players to continue the scene or the GM to resolve the scene. Alternating in-character and out-of-character portrayal is fine.

2. Your character concept need not define what kind of speaker your character is, but if you establish or play your character as a good speaker or a poor speaker, be consistent! It is a bad roleplaying to flip flop from a good speaker to a bad speaker, and it is metagaming to flip flop from a bad speaker to a good speaker in an instance when you really need to be successful.

3. Consider your reputation. Reputation is the part of your character sheet you don't get to write. You may have no reputation but can earn one through your interactions with people and your other deeds. If you're unknown but your reputation is known, this may be a benefit or a detriment. A poor reputation can sour any interaction even by someone amenable with something good to offer. Also consider that you may have separate reputations based on place or social group.

4. Objections stop people from doing what you want no matter how good a talker you are. Sometimes, people have objections that come from deeply held principles, or sometimes they just don't like you. Sometimes they don't voice these objections either. Consider a hypothetical religious shop owner who doesn't want to do business with customers of other religions. Consider a nationalist who won't betray their homeland for anything, or a man who would rather take a beating and die than earn a reputation as a coward. Consider a man might never endanger his family even if it means betraying his own values and beliefs. Some objections aren't puzzles; they're walls.

5. Charm isn't magic. Charm is often depicted in fiction as a character smiling and winking and getting what they ask for, and everyone in a room likes them. In reality, people have a general attitude and affinity for certain kinds of people or behavior which doesn't radically change because someone is charming.

6. Persuasiveness can come from good reasoning and logical argument rather than charm or charismatic speech, such as convincing someone that an idea might work. Note that people are complex, and you can't reasonably expect to change people's minds with every interaction.

7. Good persuasion can be knowing how to ask for something, but not always. Persuasion is more often like diplomacy, negotiation, or a trade deal. It's about having something of value to offer someone in exchange for something you want from them. Find what a person needs and try to satisfy it in a way that they will want to do business with you again. Regret and buyer's remorse will sour future interaction.

8. Intimidation is disrespectful. Non-player characters will have varying tolerance of disrespect, and many will remember it. Intimidation and disrespect negatively affect your reputation and become future objections.

9. Lying is generally strongly unwanted in a society. The key to a good lie is that it's plausible. If it's not plausible, you can make people suspicious of you. Also, a lie that isn't plausible isn't a lie, it's an insult (these become future objections and poor reputation). Just because you successfully convince someone that a lie is true doesn't mean your lie compels their thoughts or behavior; That would require additional persuasion or intimidation.

10. Social situations or context. If you're speaking to a king, expect to use proper courtesy and etiquette. If your manner of speaking does not suit the social situation, for example, speaking too formally at an informal situation, people might perceive this as lacking social tact. Some people might simply reject people from other social groups or classes, and there might not be much you can do about that. Altering your speech or code swapping, if caught, comes across as inauthentic and you may lose respect with certain people or groups.

11. Insight or Sensing Motivations is not a psychic power. One's ability to do this comes from experience with and knowledge of people or animals, and situational awareness. Sometimes it's a sense that something feels off that you can't explain. Pay attention to the GM's description of the NPC and their portrayal of them to spot clues or inconsistencies.

12. Players, rely on your own luck, intelligence, wisdom, perception, insight, charisma, etc., not just your character's. This is called player skill over character skill. If something feels wrong, you don't have to roll for it. If you have an idea about how to overcome an NPCs objection and make them happy, try it. Don't ask the GM "would my character think...". Judge for yourself, it's your character. If a thought occurs to you, why wouldn't it occur to your character?

13. Etiquette is a knowledge and understanding of how a social group interacts. It includes having an understanding of what words to use, when and how, of body language, of dress codes, of expected behaviors (e.g. manners, decorum). Etiquette can be a major culture, but is often more specific like criminal etiquette, scholar etiquette, business etiquette, religious etiquette, noble etiquette, warrior etiquette,  etc. Your etiquette is leaned through being a member of that social group, and so possessing that etiquette describes your history. Some social groups are clique-y or insular, and some social groups don't like other groups. This means your having or lacking of an etiquette, or your associating with people with a certain etiquette, can be an advantage or disadvantage sometimes.

How to Talk to People

1. Identify what people need.

2. Make an offer.

3. Ask for feedback to identify any objections and adjust your offer.

That's it. That's all there is to it. That's how to make a deal. That's how to threaten people. That's how to lie. That's how to ask a girl for her number (seriously).

It's important to know that if someone declines, there's a certain amount of persistence that's acceptable, then you should gracefully accept their decision. If you don't, you risk coming across as pushy and obnoxious, testing their patience, and burning their good will. You risk treating people like a mark to take advantage of rather than a person to form a functional, mutually beneficial relationship with.

Needs and objections can typically, but not always, be revealed by having a casual or friendly conversation with someone! There's no rolling. There's just keeping your mind in the scene, embodying your character, and asking open-ended questions. If a player makes an offer that is genuinely satisfying to the NPC, the offer is accepted. If there's any objections, the offer is refused unless the player can offer something that overcomes the objection. Sometimes, the NPC will tell you why the offer is not good enough and make a counteroffer. Sometimes, there's nothing you can do about an objection to your offer.

Does anyone watch Doctor Who? The Doctor is a remarkable speaker. He can walk into a room where he has no business being, act like he belongs there, tell everyone why they should listen to him, and then earn their trust or at least their begrudging obedience. If you pay attention to the writing of Doctor Who, this isn't bullsh!t. This is a smart character who happens to be charming. He asks people to make hard decisions, and he does it by explaining practically why they need to. He explains why the decision they make will help or hurt people. He appeals to people's sense of decency, duty, morality, faith, community, family. He asks people to be brave and virtuous and be the best person they can be because no one else will. This is not "I do a persuasion." *rolls dice* "33. What happens?" This is dramatic dialogue.

Conclusion

If you can speak, think, and negotiate at the table, you don't need mechanics to do it for you. Hopefully, if you use this in your game, it works. This might not be for everyone, but hopefully you can teach your players, and they can learn fast, and it'll be easy. Hopefully it will improve your game even if you go back to rolling for speech. Then again, there might be some people for whom I have spoiled speech checks for ever and they'll never want to go back (I don't!). I have seen players get into characters and give really great speeches. When players start giving impassioned speech, that's the freeform nature of this approach working! One bad die roll and they will never put in the effort to do that ever again. So, if you don't use this idea in its entirety, use some of it.

Joshua of the Bible is a Proto-Paladin

I asked Copilot this question "I would like a explantion for how similiar Joshua in the Bible is to the concept of a fantasy palandin." I will leave my typos in place. This question is interesting to me because I am a nerd for fantasy stuff, and I like the paladin class, BUT, I do not like how the modern interpretation of the paladin is drifting away from its roots and I think a Biblical reference can help to reframe the conversation about what a paladin is. First, I think the paladin must be a religious character, possess a military role, and act as a leader if not a symbol to aspire to, thus the Biblical character Joshua is a great place to take inspiration. The paladin encapsulates the ideal, romanticized chivalrous knight. A paladin is the champion of moral goodness, values, ideals, and is backed by a holy or divine authority. Definitionally, a fantasy paladin is aligned with forces of good like a Jedi, distinct from a force-user or Sith, is definitionally aligned with the light side of the force. Taking an ordinary wo/man with all their flaws and weaknesses and making them into a genuine paladin would therefore be a very rare, extraordinary thing to do. It wouldn't be easy or economic.

Some gamers I have met don't have the same starting point that I have, and they think you can have evil paladins. This doesn't make sense to me. What makes sense to me is that the forces of evil wouldn't use a paladin, they would use a monster. Maybe a hundred. It would be more economic than developing one man into every lofty idea I described above. As I conceive of a paladin, to be a paladin, one must be exceptionally moral and disciplined. It is a path that requires a lot of self-sacrifice and courage. You live for something greater than yourself. You have faith and no fear. They are symbols for common folk to aspire towards. These are not traits I associate with an evil or morally gray character. An evil person does not radiate courage in the face of trials, they radiate menace in the face of innocence, and they anticipate challengers who give them an opportunity to be cruel or wicked and to exercise their power. A morally gray paladin has no convictions, and thus champions nothing but the self. Were there to be such a thing as an alignment to the balance of good and evil, the morally gray paladin would sometimes handicap good in the face of evil and sometimes vice versa for some very, very abstract or difficult to grasp concept and goals that might make sense to an alien being, but not a flesh and blood mortal from a logical setting that would be plausible and relatable to an earth-born human being.

Similarly, a paladin of chaos, nature, the sea, or some weird idea like machines or knowledge or magic, also makes no sense to me. A person dedicated to chaos or lawlessness, or a person dedicated to nature or the sea must follows an order that is different than the order that is beneficial to mankind, and they would have their alternatives to a paladin that suit their values and needs. They would have their own defenders or warriors or champions. A champion of chaos could be the Health Ledger interpretation of Batman's villain Joker. I would describe Joker as an anti-paladin before I would describe him as a paladin. He might have devotion to an idea that rivals a proper paladin, but this is due to madness and is not backed by anything divine.

Thus, a new idea occurs to me: is the level of devotion to God that one must have in order to qualify as a paladin so extreme that one might compare it to a madness? Possibly, but also possibly not in every case.

I would ask for those of you like Warhammer 40k or Fallout, that these franchises use the word Paladin either with a twist or ironically. Possibly an intentional perversion of the concept to make a point that they are not paladins. They are not classical, traditional paladins, and they suit their respective distorted settings, but they don't fit my concept of a paladin. When I'm in the mood for fantasy, I tend to want something more familiar and traditional; not these.

I am sharing Copilot's response to my question below (with Copilot's permission) because it is delightful to me. I'll change the font for Copilot to make it distinct from my thoughts.

"Joshua, this is a fun question — and honestly, the comparison *works*, as long as you treat it as metaphor rather than historical equivalence. The page you’re looking at already notes that Joshua is **not literally a paladin** in the medieval sense   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/7), but that doesn’t stop us from exploring how his **role, virtues, and narrative arc** line up with the fantasy archetype.

Below is a clear, structured breakdown of how Joshua in the Bible resembles — and differs from — the classic paladin concept.

---

## 🛡️ Core Similarities: Joshua as a Proto‑Paladin

### **1. Divine Commission & Sacred Mission**

A paladin is defined by being chosen or empowered by a divine force.  

Joshua is explicitly commissioned by God after Moses’ death to lead Israel into the Promised Land   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/4).  

He receives direct commands, reassurance, and promises — the exact kind of “holy mandate” that fuels paladin narratives.

### **2. Holy Obedience & Moral Duty**

Paladins follow a code: righteousness, loyalty, courage.  

Joshua’s leadership is repeatedly framed around **faithfulness, obedience, and reliance on God’s guidance**   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/6).  

He is told to keep the Law “close to his heart” and to act with unwavering courage.

That’s textbook paladin ethos.

### **3. Miraculous or Supernatural Support**

Paladins often fight with divine favor — blessings, miracles, or supernatural intervention.

Joshua’s story includes:

- The Jordan River stopping its flow  

- The fall of Jericho through ritual obedience  

- Encounters with divine messengers (e.g., the “commander of the Lord’s army”)

These aren’t spells, but they *are* holy miracles tied to his mission.

### **4. Warrior‑Leader Identity**

Joshua is both a military commander and a spiritual figure.  

He leads armies, strategizes battles, and guides the people in covenant faithfulness.  

This dual role mirrors the paladin’s blend of **martial prowess + sacred authority**.

---

## ⚔️ Key Differences: Where the Analogy Breaks

### **1. No Knightly Order or Chivalric Tradition**

The page notes that “paladin” is a medieval European term, not a biblical one   [Current page](citation-section://2071350538/8).  

Joshua wasn’t part of a knightly caste, nor did he follow chivalric codes like courtly honor or feudal loyalty.

### **2. His Authority Is National, Not Knightly**

Joshua is not a wandering holy knight.  

He is the **national leader** of Israel — a successor to Moses, not a member of a warrior order.

### **3. His “powers” are covenantal, not class‑based**

Joshua doesn’t wield divine magic personally.  

Miracles occur because God acts, not because Joshua channels divine energy.

A D&D paladin might smite undead; Joshua prays, obeys, and God intervenes.

---

## 🌄 Why the Comparison *Feels* Right in Fantasy Terms

Joshua’s story has the same emotional and thematic beats as a paladin narrative:

- A chosen champion of a divine power  

- Leading a people into a promised destiny  

- Fighting battles under divine guidance  

- Upholding a sacred law  

- Acting as a moral exemplar  

- Receiving miraculous signs during key moments  

If you dropped Joshua into a grounded fantasy RPG — especially one like your Quiet Hex Crawl — he would absolutely read as a **holy warrior archetype**, even if the historical categories don’t match.

---

## 🧭 A More Precise Fantasy Archetype

If we wanted to be extremely accurate, Joshua is closest to:

- **A divinely appointed war‑captain**  

- **A covenant champion**  

- **A sacred general**  

- **A prophet‑adjacent leader with martial authority**

But “paladin” is a perfectly serviceable shorthand in fantasy discussions.

---

## 🔮 A Question to Push Your Worldbuilding Further

In your grounded‑fantasy tone:  

**Do your world’s holy champions receive miracles the way Joshua does — external acts of the divine — or do they channel power directly like a D&D paladin?**

That choice will shape the entire feel of your setting’s theology and magic."

If D&D Classes Made Sense - Managing Expectation

One complaint I have about modern D&D (5th ed) is the culture around this edition; The people who play this game think that it's fiction, therefore anything goes. It's the Smash Bros of TTRPGs. There's no cohesion, consistency, or curation. It feels like playing make believe with every toy in the toy box, even toys that don't go together. I don't like it. Some people don't care, and good for them. I mean that. I don't like it, and I recognize that my point of view might make me that picky kid who doesn't like it when their mashed potatoes touches their corn. I get it.

Here's my take on the D&D classes. It's going to sound like a guy on the internet telling you your fun is wrong, but that's not the intention! The intention is to share my perspective and find people who agree with it. Hypothetically, I could finally find the people I really want to game with. I don't count on changing people's minds, but maybe they could appreciate my perspective.

Artificer

I don't like crafting classes because if your character could make anything of market quality, why would you choose to crawl into holes and fight monsters for gold? The premise already doesn't make any sense, but that's not all! For purposes of game balance, there are very arbitrary crafting restrictions built into this class that make no sense in a believable make-believe setting. Those being that you can make only X number of items at a time, and if you want to make a new item, you have to break an old one. Yeah, OK. That doesn't sound conspicuously like a game-y design idea. If your character was asked "how come you can only make three magic items?" what answer does your character have? The answer describes the way that character class fits into the setting and the world. Seriously, how come you can only make three magic items? And do they only work for you or can you pass them out? Do their bonuses stack? Do their bonuses disappear if you die? How does that make sense? Seriously, it makes me ask too many questions.

And then there's the idea that you can craft things during a short or long rest (OK, so I have never read the rules for this class, but I think that's how it works). Listen, I've watched videos on the internet about blacksmithing. That is not light activity. It's labor. Also, imagine you're on the road and your friend pulls out a little baby anvil and starts hammering out a suit of armor while you're trying to sleep? There's no way you're going to be able to get a wink. It's a built-in absurdity of the class that no one thinks about until they start making jokes, and jokes lead to spoiling the tone of the game. I don't like it.

Finally, any crafting class needs to break the crafting rules of the game to be viable. The crafting rules of the D&D game are trying to describe a world where crafting is a time-consuming endeavor. If a standard craftsman in the setting wants to make a sword or anything valuable, it's going to take a week or longer. Based on the rules, it's going to take a blacksmith a year to make a suit of plate armor. That doesn't just describe the crafting rules, it describes the logic of the world. It might also be realistic which helps make the world intuitive, which is a benefit to your game and your fiction. Then the artificer can just beat one out during a rest. Sorry guys, that's immersion breaking. This class doesn't make sense because it forces us to make concessions to the logic of the setting to make the class work.

I will circle back around to the concept of crafting classes at the end.

Barbarian

The Romans used the word Barbarian to describe either a foreigner or someone who was non-Roman, and specifically a foreigner who is uncivilized. The Roman's didn't know everything about their non-Roman neighbors, and they didn't care. The word Barbarian could be used to describe many other cultures all at once. It didn't matter to the Roman. In other words, a barbarian is a person who comes from another culture that was assumed to be less culturally or technologically developed than Rome. In D&D, a barbarian is some kind of warrior that gets more powerful when they're angry. It's stupid, and it's stupid how we went from one thing to the other thing.

To me, barbarian is either a culture within the setting (so a background rather than a class), a character flavor, or a subclass of fighter. Maybe all three. I don't think we need it as a class.

I think raging is flavor, not an action. I think it's a good idea to look at other TTRPGs and see how they design something because the reality is every design is a solution to a problem or an answer to a question. Let's talk about GURPS for a second. GURPS is a game that tries to create rules that describe reality. This allows the system to be setting and genre neutral. In GURPS, anyone can make an All-Out Attack as an action. When you make an all-out attack, you choose either to hit harder or you make a multi-attack (with a penalty to accuracy?). Now, as a mechanical trade-off to making an all-out attack, you take a temporary penalty to your defenses. The logic here is that you are fully committing to an attack and so you don't focus on defense as much. High risk, high reward. It makes sense. I think this is how D&D rage should work, but in D&D, it's the opposite. I think D&D rage is stupid, but GURPS all-out attack is smart.

Bard

I really like the D&D bard, I really do, but I also think "magical musical talky-guy" is a really stupid concept for an adventuring class, and I think most D&D players who pick bard also use it as an excuse to make a joke character, and I think that sucks.

Have you ever wondered where the word bard comes from? A bard is a type of druid-in-training, not its own separate concept. Bard is an intermediate level that takes on the role of storyteller. See, Druidism is believed to be an oral tradition; that means they didn't write anything down! Instead, the druids memorized everything, and they passed knowledge down exclusively verbally. The druid's training involved a lot of developing a strong memory and memorizing a ton of stories. The bard was therefore the level for a druid-in-training that focused on the memory and memorization. Storytelling was their role as this allowed them to exercise all this memory training. I am of course talking completely out of my ass because everything we know about druids comes from secondary sources because the druids themselves didn't leave a record behind due to their oral tradition. I have no idea what Gary Gygax was thinking when he created the bard class. Can you imagine how D&D might be different if Gary had the internet when he created D&D?

Do you know what a skald is? It's a warrior poet. For clarification, the warrior poet was not warrior who was artsy. He was a proper warrior. His job on the side was to take the accomplishments of himself and his allies in battle and record them in the form of a song or poem so. That's it. The effect was that he could help with the prestige of his companions. You can't fear or admire someone if you've never heard about them. What better way to hear about someone than to hear a fantastic story or poem or song about their bravery and triumphs? The skald probably got a bigger share of the spoils for taking on this responsibility too. To clarify, the skald was not some goofy looking MFer in the back wearing pantaloons and a plumed hat, playing a lute in the middle of a skirmish and making allies slightly more effective one by one. That's goofy. It makes the fiction of the game hard to take seriously.

As an exercise, ask what if a wandering poet, traveling-musician or adventuring performer was its own social class or culture within the setting. In my eyes, you might be able to justify the D&D bard if you came up with something that makes sense. I'm imagining gypsies from Disney's Hunchback movie.

At the end of the day, if you want to be a musical or poetic character, you don't need a class to realize this concept. Anyone can be a musician or a poet. The game does not need to come up with rules for being artistic and balance this against other skills or powers.

Cleric

What does cleric mean? It means "of the clergy". Historically, the clergy is a social class. You know, social classes in a class system like peasanty, merchants, nobility, etc. In a society where religion is important, the clergy is the religious class. The priests are their own class distinct from peasants and nobility. So, in summary, a cleric describes anyone who is a part of organized religion. What place or role within organized religion? It depends on the religion. By some stretches, a cleric could mean a random worshipper who got powers from God because they're particularly devout (think Joan of Arc). A cleric would be assumed to be a priest or a priest-in-training. A cleric adventurer is a little different. A cleric adventurer is assumed to be a missionary, a traveling monk or friar, a templar knight, a war-priest, something like that.

All that being said, I don't like how 5e says that Clerics can get their powers from an ideal. I think that sucks. If you're a cleric, you are a religious character! Pick a religion or god, and follow the rules of that religion or god.

Druid

I don't like the concept of the fantasy druid because I don't know what the heck a fantasy druid is supposed be. I think people think it's some kind of nature wizard. If you want to be a nature wizard, just be a wizard who likes nature. Historically, and for clarity I mean historically in real life on planet earth, Druids were just the priest class of another religion (see my rant above about clerics as a social class). Therefore, in my opinion, Druids are just clerics.

And no wildshape. I don't need you people turning my game into a Hannah Barbara cartoon with goofy talking animals. You know some of you play your characters like Scooby-Doo; You know 90% of druid players do that. It's goofy, stop it.

Fighter

What is a fighter? It's kind of an abstract label. It means someone who fights, right? Let me put it like this, if fighter describes a social class in your setting, it describes the military class. A fighter can therefore be any sort of soldier or warrior from pikeman to legionnaire to knight to samurai. Your flavor of fighter therefore should suit the setting.

I'd believe that mechanically, barbarian, ranger, and Paladin, even bard if you only consider the warrior poet variety (see my rant about bards), should be variations or subclasses of fighter, not their own distinct classes. Let me try to convince you. Barbarian warriors are just fighters from another culture. Rangers have traded heavy armor for wilderness survival skills. Paladins are religious fighters. Read my sections about these specific classes for more. I also have thoughts about the monk as a fighter, but I won't discuss that here. 

The fighter should be the strongest martial class. There should not be a stronger martial class unless they're a prestige class. By prestige class, I mean a class that must be earned through merit and a class that has additional training, tools, powers, skills, or etc., that the average fighter does not have. An eldritch knight for example is a fighter with magic, and was a prestige class in 3e.

Monk

I don't think the monk belongs in D&D because the monk comes from another genre. I know there are people who disagree with D&D being strictly the fantasy genre, but I like D&D as being strictly of the fantasy genre, and Monks come from the kung-fu (or Wu Xia) genre. Here's why they don't go together. The martial artists of the kung-fu genre have a mystic power that comes from chi or ki. It gives them superhuman powers like a low-level superhero. They can do things like take hits from sticks without feeling it, take hits from blades without being cut, snatch live arrows out of the air, leap great heights, and fall great heights without harm. It's cool! It really is! But, in the words of Branden Sanderson, it's a soft magic system. It's a separate magic system from the D&D or a fantasy magic system. In my mind, it does not belong, like a square peg in a round hole or like macaroni art on the Mona Lisa. Further, I think it's valid to argue that your setting doesn't have a mystic life force or vitality (chi or ki) that one can train to become superhuman or have extraordinary abilities; and also that magic cannot be harnessed by a fighter to the same effect. I think that's completely valid! In D&D, a monk can punch ghosts - ethereal, intangible beings. I think that is at odds with the logic of the fantasy world that I would like to create (right now).

I would substitute a pugilist for the monk. Pugilist means barehanded fighter. Think boxer plus wrestler. It's a pit-fighter. I would make it a subclass or a variety of fighter. Maybe it's just a flavor of fighter and not necessarily its own class. It's a fighter with a specialty. If you look at my definition of what a fighter is in the Fighter, it's anyone who is trained in the art of war (essentially). And so in some cultures, the martial artists / pugilist would be the fighter. I personally don't think it's even a stretch. Any monk feature or feat that is plausible for a human adventurer in a fantasy setting is fair game for a fighter-only feat.

I want to add that I watched Critical Role campaign 2, and I like what Matt did with monks in his world. He made them librarians who were also a secret counter-tyranny order or something. Whatever, it was cool flavor.

Paladin

A paladin is something Gary Gygax made up. I can't say what he was thinking, but Paladin is a word that is derived from the Latin palatinus which means "of the palace". Do you see the connection? Palace. Paladin. Both words contain pala. Anyway, Paladins historically are the soldiers who are of the palace. They are essentially equivalent to the presidential security or secret service. You only put your best and most loyal guys in charge of the personal residence and protection of the royalty. In addition, since they're going to be the presence of the foreign delegates and other political guests, you want your security force to make you look good and reflect well on you. They are therefore going to be expected to have good etiquette meaning manners; not just manners, but they need to be able to speak properly to the noble class. Does any of this make sense yet? Elite soldiers who are very loyal to the laws, look presentable, speak well, and answer directly to the highest authority in the land. That's a paladin.

OK, so what about the weird fantasy powers of the paladin? You know, the healing touch, the summoning a majestic steed, divine sense, divine aura, divine spellcasting, immunity to disease, and the smiting evil? They do not get it from an oath! I wave my hand dismissively at your nerdy fantasy crap. The only powers that are cool is the healing touch and disease immunity, but only for a religious paladin. Here's the logic for that. Some kings have divine right to rule. That means their right to the land over which they rule comes from divinity, id est God. So, if the king's authority comes from God, then it logically follows that their most devout followers should get a splash of that divinity. Not all of it, just a hint of it that validates their king's divine right. The paladin is therefore a religious character, and a lawful character, and a variety or subclass or prestige class of fighter - not its own separate class.

Ranger

I think I'm halfway through the classes. Phew. Geeze. I'm such a nerd. Anyway, what is a ranger? Well, what is a range? In American English (the best English), the open range describes an area of land without boundaries. A range-er is therefore someone who lives or works on the range. But that's not entirely what a ranger is.

Imagine a frontiersman. What is a frontier? It's an unexplored area of wilderness where various dangers might live; typically, other cultures and specifically underdeveloped cultures. Apologies if you're sensitive to rhetoric that is not culturally sensitive, but the historic reality of the American settlers and the American natives are bloody, and it's not one-sided. Frontier life for settlers was dangerous, and this sort of conflict is what early D&D resembled with remote villages and fort towns on the edge of society where adventurers would start their adventures and push deeper and deeper into hostile, monster infested wilderness.

Or imagine a borderland. A border between kingdoms is not always distinct like a line on a map. Sometimes historically, a border was very unclear spatially; it might be unclear where one kingdom and its laws ends and the law of another kingdom begins. Therefore, the people who lived on a border might have neighbors with allegiances to the other kingdom. The borderlands were a place where the jurisdiction was unclear, and so the enforcement of the law might be messy.

What I'm trying to describe with these concepts of a range, a frontier, and a borderland is a place where people can more easily get away with crime and lawless behavior. Outlaws can hide out. Other threats to civilization lurk miles away and can attack randomly. A ranger is therefore a subclass or variation of fighter who specializes in fighting in the wilderness. They trade armor for outdoor survival skills. Their favored enemy describes the most common threat that they have to deal with.

There is no reason why rangers should have any spellcasting except that some guy at WotC thinks it's cool. I don't think rangers should get magic. Get rid of it.

Rogue

When most people think about the rogue, they think about the dexterity class. I don't. The rogue is derived from the thief class of classic D&D. The thief class was basically the normal dude of the group, but they had skills. They were (and are) the skill class. They couldn't hit as well as a fighter, and they couldn't avoid hits as well as a fighter. Instead, they could sneak, hide, listen for noises, disarm traps, pick locks, climb ropes, pick pockets, and backstab. That's what they did. They were a skill class for utility, not a class for combat.

Skills are based on intelligence. I'm not describing how D&D works, I'm describing how skills work in real life. Skills are something you learn through study and improve through practice. Mechanically, thieves benefitted from dexterity, but in reality, learning and mastering skills is benefited by having high intelligence. For reference, in 3e D&D, you got skill points to invest in skills, and your skill points were based on a combination of class and intelligence. In GURPS, intelligence is the basis for about half the skills in the catalog.

Assassin should not be available to players out of the gate because assassins get poison crafting and I think that makes it a prestige class because crafting of poisons should not be a common skill.

Sorcerer

A sorcerer is someone who has magic through an innate ability rather than book-learning like a wizard. Their innate ability comes from a magical bloodline, like having a dragon or some other magical creature somewhere in your ancestry. For clarity, you are not part dragon or part devil or part fey or whatever, you have a trace of that magical bloodline. Your pool of spells is therefore shallower than a wizard. I don't think this should be its own class; See wizard.

Warlock

A warlock is someone who has made a pact with an extraplanar entity, like a demon or devil for example, in exchange for magic. For clarity, your magic is granted by this bargain or agreement. I don't think this should be its own class; See wizard.

Wizard

The wizard in modern D&D is derived from the Magic-User in classic D&D. Mechanically, they can learn almost any arcane spell with research and by recording it in their spellbook. Thus, we have the tradeoff.

What's a magic-user? It's anyone who uses arcane magic. The idea was that we don't care what kind of magic you used, or what kind of magic-user you were because if you used magic, you were a magic-user. The wizard is a concept that, like druids, I don't know if I fully understand. It's a kind of magician - someone who uses magic. What kind? I don't know. I don't care either. There's no real-world equivalent. Similarly, what is a sorcerer or a warlock? I don't care. They're all magic-users and I don't care!

Therefore, I want magic-user or mage to be the class, and I want Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard (maybe bard or druid) to be flavors or subclasses or variations, not distinct, separate classes. What is the origin of your magic? How does it work? I don't care. You're a magician. No one cares. The kind of magician is not special, just like how the kind of fighter someone might be is not special. Calm down.

Crafting Class(es)

As I said earlier, if you can make quality goods for a living, why would you crawl into holes and fight monsters for gold? Let me rephrase the question like this: If you could make and sell Rolex watches for a living, why would you instead earn a living by fighting wild bears? Why wouldn't you just work for a living? Craftsman as adventuring classes are therefore a bit nonsensical.

I think modern D&D came up with a pretty good solution to crafting skills. 3e D&D had a single crafting skill for mundane goods, and a single crafting skill for magical goods, but 5e divided crafting into tool sets. You can get proficiency with a tool set through a background (or a feat?). Each tool set describes a single discipline or trade. Proficiency with a tool set allows you to create goods of that trade. For example, proficiency with Smithing Tools means you're skilled with smithing. The game doesn't use the term tool check and that is its first weakness! Its second weakness is that the catalog of crafting formulas and recipes and etc. weren't included or viable until they released one of the supplemental books, and it comes across like a patch or a fix.

So, if you want to be an alchemist in D&D, get proficiency with alchemy tools, and bang, you're an alchemist. It's not an adventuring class, it's something you can do now as an adventurer mostly during downtime. It requires a bit of investment at character creation or at one phase of character improvement, and it requires a bit of fenagling with downtime to make it work for you. It works; Not sure if it works for D&D 5e style play, but as a subsystem, it works. Not sure how I like it for describing crafting as a part of the setting either because it suggests to me that crafting magic potions is kind of easy or common.

So yeah, you don't need an artificer class or an alchemist class, you just need sensible restrictions on access to crafting skills and on what you can craft, when you can craft it, and what it costs to craft it. I would make sure there's a tradeoff but also make sure that it makes sense within the setting.

Summary

There are only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Thief (or Rogue), and Mage. Druids do not need to be their own class because they can be their own subclass or variation of either cleric or mage depending on your setting. You don't need Barbarians, Paladins, or Rangers because they can be a subclass or variation of fighter. You don't need Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards because they can all be variations or subclasses of Mage. Bards are nonsense because the concept that you're trying to describe is a musical character. Anyone can be a musical. You don't need a class to be musical. Pick any class and flavor it as a musician or poet. Finally, Monks have their own soft magic system that describes are different type of fantasy. Also, they could be a variation or subclass of fighter.

More classes and subclasses do not give you more options, they give you more definition. Definitions means restrictions. Pick a class. Flavor it. Move on. There's a game called Olde Swords Reign (link) which is free by the way, that uses only four classes and allows you to customize these classes with feats. These feats resemble familiar class features. In essence, you can build your own variant class by adding feats. For example, you can give a fighter the rage feat. You're still a fighter, but you can rage.

Update: This post is unintentionally a follow up to a slightly older post (link) about class design.