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. 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 it 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.
