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.

There are Only Three Classes - Game Design Theory

What are Classes?

What is the point of classes in your TTRPG? Classes offer different categorizations of character options, but beyond that, what is the value of a class system? Classically, their value comes in distinguishing playstyles or roles in an adventuring party. Each class has a specialty meaning they can do something that the other classes cannot! If classes start to blend together, or if classes begin to overlap, then some classes risk become redundant.

Some classes systems are strictly mechanical, but some class systems describe your character's place in the setting. For example, the word fighter is an abstract word. As a class, it describes anyone who is trained in the art of war, but a soldier is a fighter with allegiance to a country. A knight or samurai are a part of social class. Further, the class of knight and samurai describes the character's cultural (and maybe even ethnical) origin. Some class systems also give titles to your character at different levels.

Pure Classes

Truely there are only three types of pure classes.

Fighter - guy who bonks, wears armor, uses shields; for conventual combat

Rogue - guy with uncommon, usually non-combat skills; a utility class

Mage - guy who casts magical spells; extraordinary and supernatural stuff

I call these the three basic classes. I'm going to refer to these three classes throughout this post, although, apologies, I might not use the class names consistently; Rogues are also known as thief, mages are also known as magic-user.

Combination Classes

Some classes are effectively a combination of classes or combo class for lack of a better term. For example, the cleric as it was originally published in the original D&D game was a little bit of a fighter and a little bit of a magic-user. It was something of an in between. What distinguishes cleric from fighter is cleric can't use as many weapons and armor. What distinguishes cleric from magic-user is clerics get a different spell list, and it didn't have as much spell variety. Further, clerics have their own specialty in turning the undead and a roleplay restriction that required them to be an ethically or morally lawful / good character. Note that to create a combination class that's not excessively powerful, you must get some but not all benefits of one class, and some but not all benefits of the other class, and possibly some other restrictions or requirements.

Variant Classes

Over the years, other classes have been added. Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian were originally variants of the fighter in Advanced D&D, not separate classes, which makes sense because fighter does not describe a specific type of warrior. Fighter abstractly describes any and all types of warriors. If you don't like the term variant class, you could also go with a sub-class. A ranger is a fighter who trades his heavy armor for tracking skills to fight beasts and outlaws on the edge of civilization. Barbarian comes from the Greek "barbaros" meaning foreigner, and so a barbarian is just a fighter from another culture, usually a culture with a lower level of technological development. A scald (I think this was mentioned in some unearthed arcana or other supplemental magazine) is a warrior poet. Scalds make records of the battles they participate in as a song or poem. I think it was a prototype of a bard. By the way, a bard is actually a rank for a druid-in-training, not whatever modern D&D says. Fantasy, am I right?

Prestige Classes

Some games have prestige classes. These are classes that are earned through play. In D&D 3e, arcane trickster and eldritch knight were both prestige classes. Knight and Samurai are, in my mind, prestige classes. Both knight and samurai are types of fighters, but they have a social rank. The elevated social status means you have privileges, but also duties and allegiances, and even a code of conduct. These positions must therefore be earned, or granted by an ranking NPC, hence why they're prestigious. I would also argue that a paladin is a prestige class because paladin comes from the latin word palatinus which means "of the palace"; a paladin was therefore a member of the palace. Who lives in a palace? Nobles and royalty. Ordinary warriors do not become paladins. How did paladins become religious warriors? Because they serve a lord whose authority comes from a higher power (God). God blesses the king, and so, paladins, being of loyalty to a king blessed by God, and being of faith in that God, get just a touch of that blessing. This is why paladins can perform lay on hands and turn undead and etc.

Specialties

What's important about classes is that they have a specialty or a niche. This means that there is something that only they can do that no one else can do, or alternatively, no one else can do as well as they can! If a class doesn't have a niche, then there's no point in having them as a distinct class. Maybe you should opt for a skill-based system rather than a class-based system.

Niche Protection

If you have a class that isn't the best at doing what it does, then why would you pick them? For example, in 5th edition D&D, there is the Rogue class and the Ranger class. The Ranger can get the survival skill and they can be double-proficient in it, unlike the ranger. Furthermore, the 5e Rogue has a combat action called Sneak Attack which allows them to add a bunch of bonus damage dice to an attack roll if a condition (having advantage) is met. Meanwhile, the 5e Ranger class has a Hunter's Mark bonus action. Get a load of this. It costs a bonus action to use it to mark a target or to mark a new target. When you attack a marked target, you get to add an additional damage die. Just one. Want to know how to simplify this? Just give the ranger a bonus damage die when they attack. They would still be doing less damage than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. So, if a 5e Rogue can track better than a 5e Ranger, and do more damage than a ranger, why pick Ranger? In my opinion, the other 5e Ranger options are meh. In my opinion, the designers of modern editions of D&D have trivialized the ranger as a distinct class and they should just make the ranger a subclass of either rogue or fighter (or maybe they can make it a floating subclass?). The reasons why they haven't are up to speculation, and I'm not usually one for that.

Designing a Class System

One of my favorite examples of games with a class system is Lamentations of the Flame Princess; it's a retroclone of D&D Basic Expert (or B/X) from 1984. To my recollection, you can download the players handbook and referee guide (both books without pictures) for free on the website! What I like about the LotFP Fighter is that they are the only class that gets a scaling to-hit bonus. Every other class only gets a +1 to-hit bonus, but Fighter's to-hit bonus is equal to their level. Why do I like this? Because it makes the fighter distinct. Really, why would a magic-user grow in martial proficiency as they level up? You could argue that they'd get a little better over time, but do we really need rules for that? For simplicity, I would say just nah.

In the Thief Class (the old name for the Rogue) section of the LotFP book is where the game describes skills. Why? Because you don't need skills to be in a separate chapter because only the Thief needs skills. Duh. Skills are rolled on a six-sided die in LotFP. The book says the referee can permit any player to roll a skill check if it is reasonable, but they succeed by rolling a 1. In other words, the other classes have a 16.67% chance to succeed a skill check if the referee rules it's allowed. The thief is the only character who can do all the skill rolls and can improve them as they level up.

The Magic-User Class in LotFP is the only class that can do magic (asterisk, there is a cleric class and an Elf class). In summary, if you want to hit things, be a fighter. If you want to do skills, be a thief. If you want to cast spells, be a magic-user. That's a class system.

Re-Flavoring an Existing Class Rather than Creating a New One

The LotFP Magic-User is the only class who can cast spells. There is a fully designed Cleric class in the book, but I've heard the game's author say that there really isn't a cleric class in his head because the Cleric in LotFP in his setting is just a magic-user who thinks he's a cleric because all magic-users are a little crazy. This makes sense because the LotFP book does not distinguish magic-user spells from cleric spells, and the mechanical distinctions between Magic-User and Cleric in LotFP are minor. I think I like this a lot! It says to me that if you want to be some other class, all you have to do is pick a standard class and flavor it as something else.

I really like this idea. I would rather have this as an option than a long, long catalog of distinct classes. Why? Because I don't need that! It's bloat! It's clutter! And because I want to make my own stuff. I want looseness and flexibility in my games! I don't want players looking at a catalog and asking "is this all there is?"  If you want to be a Paladin, pick Fighter and flavor it like a religious character. If you want to be a Druid, pick Cleric and re-flavor it as the priest of a nature religion or a nature wizard or whatever the eff a fantasy druid is. Etc. There's no need to design distinct, separate classes that are basically the same as another with minor differences.

Balance

Did you notice I never once mentioned jack crap about balance? Attempting to balance the character classes is probably what ruins the class system. Classes should have specialties. There should absolutely be things that some classes cannot do, or if they can all do it, the rest of the classes have the basic, minimal chance that any normal man would have at doing it. The trouble with balancing classes is that it's work, it's unnecessary work, and you probably can't achieve a perfectly balanced class-based game with classes that feel distinct. I feel that the wizard class is trivialized by the presence of other magic classes.

Proposed Alternatives

Five Torches Deep is a 5e compatible game that made four classes. I don't recall exactly, but it's basically fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric, but with different names. All of the 5e classes appear as subclasses. Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk might have been subclasses of the Warrior. Thief, Bard, and Ranger might have been subclasses of the Rogue. Druid, Paladin, and Cleric might have been subclasses of the Zealot. And finally, wizard, sorcerer, and warlock are subclasses of the Mage. Why? Because you're taking the four basic classes, the most basic classes, and you're using them as a base. Then you're creating distinct flavors of each base. That is so effing slick! Seriously, look up Five Torches Deep!

Olde Swords Reign (is free online by the way!) is 5e compatible and also uses the four basic classes of fighter, specialist (instead of thief), magic-user, and cleric. There are no subclasses or variant classes. Instead, the game takes all the class features you're familiar with and puts them into different pools of feats. The categories are fighter feats, specialist feats, and general feats. Everyone has access to the general feats. Essentially, this decouples class from subclass entirely, because subclasses or variant classes are restrictive. You aren't restricted to a single growth path like in 5e, instead, you can pick and choose what you want when you want it. It's customizable and allows for a lot of flavor.

Social Skills-Using Class

In case you're wondering, I don't care to create a class dedicated to influencing others socially because this is a roleplaying game and I don't believe the mechanics of the game should govern or try to mechanize or systematize conversations. I don't believe conversation should be balanced with other aspects of the game, like combat or exploration. In fact, I hate that! I think anyone who can fight well can also talk and explore perfectly well.

Classes Describe the Setting

Another thing to consider is that the rules of the game describe the setting. The class options that are available to the players describe what classes exist in the world, or alternatively, which character classes are adventuring classes. For example, in D&D B/X, there is no option for dwarves to be any class. They are restricted to the Dwarf class. As a reader, you wonder why. The book doesn't explain it, but you have to figure that there must be Dwarf clerics because they have their own pantheon, it's just that dwarf clerics don't adventure. Fair. In AD&D, dwarves had class options but were restricted from being magic-users. Why? Must be something about dwarven culture shunning magic or the career. Use your imagination. Maybe there are dwarven magic-users, but they're very rare. I recall notes that most dwarfs are lawful good and the thief class can't be that alignment, so there you go. Dwarf culture does not produce thieves.

If you take my recommendation to pick a basic class and flavor it, that flavor must be compatible with the setting. If you pick any class and flavor it as a traveling minstrel or a troubadour, that means there are traveling minstrels in the world. Just keep in mind that, rules as written, the game master (GM) is the curator of the setting and it's his setting even if it's a published, official setting. That means if the GM says no dwarf wizards, then there are no dwarf wizards.

Multi-Classing or Dual-Classing?

Multi-classing means being able to gain a new class and the benefits of the new class while still retaining the benefits of the old class. Dual-classing means being two full-classes at once, possessing all of the benefits of each, and progressing in them both simultaneously. Dual-class characters usually need double xp to advance in level, but a multi-class character needs normal xp based on the total of their levels in all their classes.

I believe multi-classing must be pursued in play. If you're a thief and you join the army and receive military training then congratulations, you're now multiclassing as a thief-fighter. However, if you as a player of a thief character decide you want to also be a fighter one day, no, you can't just add that to your character sheet. If one multi-classes, there must be a penalty for balancing, right? Not necessarily. If I join the military and go through boot camp, why wouldn't I be able to do everything a beginner soldier can do? I would just be a beginner or a novice in that new class. No dual-classing.

The Three Basic Classes in Other Genres

I'm not much of a sci-fi guy, but I suppose I could be into space opera. Think Star Wars for a moment. How do these three classes (fighter, thief, magic-user) translate into Star Wars? First, let's make some basic assumptions. First, piloting is a common skill and does not indicate a class (example a pilot class). Lots of people seem to be able to use vehicles. No big deal. Second, use of computers and machines (even droids) is also common to people within the setting, even if it's all unfamiliar to you! These skills do not indicate a need for a class to me, such as an engineer or machinist class. Third, there is no magic, instead we have the force. Forth, guns are the dominant way of fighting in many places, and in those places, they'd be common and ordinary, but weapons that bonk or cut or stab are probably uncommon in those areas.

So, a fighter in Star Wars would be able to handle any armor and any weapon. A staff, a grenade, a big gun, whatever. There's one exception: the light saber is off limits. Why? Because! Now shut up.

A thief would be able to use peasant weapons, small arms, a holdout blaster. Right? And they'd be able to hack any computer terminal or pick any locked door too, and they'd be able to disarm any trap or explosive, at least better than anyone else. They can sneak and they can back attack. Familiar? Cool? OK.

A magic-user is out. Sorry. Instead, we have force-user. Either a jedi or sith, or some uninitiated force adept. A force adept is someone with some force sensitivity or above-average potential with the force who has discovered a few basic force powers. They can't really learn more on their own, they need a teacher. Jedi have restrictions to the list of force powers, but the sith have unrestricted access. The force-user has access to the same weapons as a thief (small blasters, bonk-sticks), and the supremely supreme light saber.

As a thought experiment, what is Han Solo's class? He's described as a smuggler, but does that mean the same thing as a Thief? Maybe he's a fighter who smuggles? I would say if you wanted to interpret Han as either a thief or a fighter, you can. It depends on how you justify it.

Now, the Star Wars KOTOR games describe three (non-jedi and non-droid) classes: Soldier, Scout, and Scoundrel. If you read them, you'll easily identify Soldier is the Fighter and Scoundrel is the Thief. So what is a scout? At a glance, I think it's something like a ranger, but I'm not sure. I only conclude that based on the fact that I think ranger definitely suits a setting like Star Wars. I think someone really only stuck the Scout in the game for variety. I would rule that it's just a variant of thief with wilderness survival skills instead of urban thievery skills and call it a day. And I think that's fine.

I played Shadow Run on the PC by Harebrained Schemes. It's good. It's a dystopian cyberpunk fantasy thing. They have street samurai as their fighter and that's what I picked. They have a class called a Rigger that remotely controls drones or robots as a utility class, possibly a thief(?), and a class called a Decker who goes into the internet almost like going into the matrix and they hack computers (another utility class). Cool in concept but I thought it wasn't fun. They have mages (magic-users) and shamans (magic-users with a nature flavor). They also have a class called either the adept or the physical adept which as far as I can tell is the monk, so a flavor or variant of fighter.

Skill System Plus Class System?

Not really into this myself. The first time this might have been done is D&D 3e, and I think this led to the eventual trivialization of the Ranger class by taking their specialty, tracking, and making it into a general skill, survival, that anyone else can do. I think the benefits of a class system is to simplify a game, and the benefits of a skill system are to allow customization. The thief is the utility class. Give them a theme for their skills. Thievery or Wilderness Survival or Alchemy. Just use your judgement in-game and play. It's fine.

If you want multiple skills or skill sets, I suggest instead making clear, distinct variants of the Rogue / thief, aka the utility class. Basic Fantasy RPG (also free!), has the thief as a core class and the ranger as a supplemental optional class which just swaps some skills around. Effectively, the dungeon skills and the wilderness skills. Use the logic of your setting to make these variants.

Conclusion

There are three categories of classes: The combat class, the utility class, and the magic class. Each category has flavors (variants). You don't need distinct mechanics for each. I have an opinion that classes should be distinct. For example, if you're a non-combat class, why would you be good at combat? Only the utility class needs to worry about skills, and only the magic class needs to worry about magic. Below, I have an abstract concept of how one might distinguish these. Features that are listed are part of the class, but features that are not listed are not. For simplicity, I am using D&D 3e saving throw names.

Combat Class

HP: base of 10 HP, +1 HP per level

Weapons and Armor: all, including shields

Hit Bonus: +1 per level, max +10

(optional) Either Bonus Attack or Bonus Damage Die: +1 every 5 levels

(optional) Crit range: +1 every 5 levels (19-20 at level 5, 18-20 at level 10)

Saves: Fortitude +1 per level

Flavors: Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk / Pugilist, Soldier, Knight

Utility Class

HP: base of 8 HP, +1 HP at even levels

Weapons and Armor: peasant

(optional) Hit Bonus: +1 at even levels or +1 every three levels beginning at level 3

Skill Bonus: +1 per level, max +10

Skills: Based on flavor or a theme

(optional) backstab: +2 bonus damage dice when attacking unaware foe from behind

Saves: Reflexes +1 per level

Flavors: Thief, Dungeoneer, Ranger, Alchemist, Assassin, Rogue

Magic Class

HP: base of 8 HP, +1 HP at even levels

Weapons and Armor: peasant

(optional) Hit Bonus: +1 at even levels or +1 every three levels beginning at level 3

Spellcasting Bonus: +1 per level, max +10

Spells Available: Based on flavor or a theme

Saves: Will +1 per level

Flavors: Mage, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Warlock, War Priest

I would suggest allowing players to distinguish these characters with feats or talents if this is too basic for them. How are they available, either by level up or training or whatever, and how frequently, is up to you, but don't hand them out too often. A class system works when each class does something no one else can do; if classes aren't distinct, you don't have a system, you have a list.

Update: I wrote a post (here) where I comment on D&D 5e classes. It's an unintentional companion post to this one. I will write a real follow up on how to fix modern class design in RPGs. It's on the to-do list.

Update: the real follow up to this post is written. How to Fix Modern Class Design (link).

What's Wrong with the 5e Ranger?

First concept: playstyle. There are only three pure playstyles: martial, magic, skill. The quintessential classes are fighter, magic-user (or wizard), and thief (or rogue). Every other class is a hybrid or variation. Paladins, barbarians, and rangers were once variations or subclasses of fighter.

Second concept: specialties. What makes you special is that you can do something that no one else can do. When you take something special about one class and make it available to others, it is no longer a specialty and is trivial. For example, fighters were once the only class who could regularly hit for consistent damage. Now everyone has a way of doing consistent damage such as cantrips. Wilderness survival skills such as tracking were once unique to rangers.

Third concept: niche or identity. What is a ranger? A ranger is a character who defends civilization by fighting the evils that threaten it on the boarders of the wilderness. They are in essence a fighter who has traded heavy armor for wilderness survival skills. This is easily stolen from them by the Survival skill becoming available to other classes and by a lack of emphasis on the exploration phase of the game. A Rogue can put expertise into survival and out survival the ranger.

To summarize, Rangers were once a fighter subclass that is no longer special and they're part of a class roster in a game that underemphasizes exploration which is their brand.

What has modern WotC done for the ranger? Made the ranger a combination martial, magic, skill character, which we have plenty of, with features most players won't use such as nullifying difficult terrain when hexcrawling, or features that aren't as valuable as another feature from another class, like how favored enemy is not as good as sneak attack. Animal companion is not a worthwhile feature imo because why couldn't anyone have an animal companion when bloodhounds and game hawks ought to be a commodity you can buy from a trainer? Hunters mark? Why not just give the ranger bonus damage die on all attacks since they'll be using it constantly, and so it will simplify the Ranger player's turn? Call it a built-in hunter's mark damage die.

To fix the problem, you need to take the ranger's things away from the other classes and give them back to the ranger. It's like giving anyone else unarmored defense, battle rage or an inspiring voice that gives bonuses orcsneak attack. And they have to put in some really good exploration rules and instructions so people understand hexcrawling or point crawling and want to use these rules. I've had 5 GMs now, and none of them understand hexcrawling. They all handwave it. Even Matthew Mercer, celebrity GM, doesn't do hex crawling. Maybe hexcrawling just isn't that fun? Alternatively, make ranger a subclass of fighter or rogue.

D&D Rangers Suck and it's 3e's Fault!

 If I was a pretty girl and I asked you what was special about you, you understand that I'm asking what is it that you can offer me that other guys can't. Your specialty is therefore what you can do that other people cannot do, or what you can do better. Rangers were special because they were the only ones who could do survival, then in 3e devs added the skill system which took what made the ranger special and made it available to everyone else, trivializing the Ranger. To compensate, devs gave rangers lame powers like animal companions which anyone can get b/c fantasy, and devs made rangers partial casters at early levels and whoopy for that. Who isn't a partial caster these days?

By comparison, the 5e Rogue can sneak attack for consistently more damage than rangers and rogues can also put expertise into survival. 5e Druids can cast good berry with a first level spell, 5e Clerics can create food and water (3rd level spell?), the 5e Outlander background can AUTOMATICALLY forage enough food for a party of 4 (or 5?). Furthermore, wilderness exploration is very non-present in 5e. Rangers suck because they don't have a specialty anymore. Also, who can describe what a ranger is without game mechanics? Can anyone even do that!

I recommend making the 5e Ranger a flavor or subclass of either Fighter or Rogue rather than it's own mid class. Alternatively, everyone play OSRIC instead. The SRD for OSRIC is free online. Seriously, for perspective, go read what it says a Ranger is compared to its other class options. You will see why ranger used to be special but now it isn't.