D&D 5E Which classes have the least identity?

[Maxperson]

It most certainly does if wotc has declared that the wizard spell list size & exclucivity is a key part of their identity & that the overlap was not practically the entire list

They can't force a class identity on us. Class identity is subjective. It's how we perceive the class.

 

[Mecheon]

Why do you think Necromancers should be able to resurrect? They are about animating the dead and creating all kinds of undead creatures, not bringing the dead to life.

The story of the necromancer is generally one of depression and grief. Trying to bring someone back who's passed on, only to create abominations in their place

What better way to represent them than finally being able to achieve that goal of a true resurrection, built upon the many, many, many bodies they've had to sacrifice?

 

[ECMO3]

A good Fighter would punish the enemy for ignoring them, trapping them in a lose-lose scenario.

And you're part of the problem! You don't want the Fighter to get ANYTHING unique because you can't see them as anything but a default weapon user you staple stuff on top! And no 'extra attack and extra feats' are not enough because they're STILL doing the same thing as everybody, only a few more times, and the third attack only comes in super late so it makes no difference in the levels people ACTUALLY play. Pandering to people like you results in a boring class with no identity.

The fighters get some unique things through the class chassis and you are right I don't want them to have any more than they already have (and I could do with less personally).

If your fighters are doing the same thing as over and over that is because it is what you decide to do with them. Boring play is boring play and it is not exclusive to a given class. I can tell you I am not bored when I play a fighter and I am not doing the same thing turn after turn.

I am fine with putting maneuvers in a subclass and fighter subclasses have a lot going for them already, but I strongly object to the suggestion than my opinions on what is best for the game and most fun are a "problem".

 

[Maxperson]

The story of the necromancer is generally one of depression and grief. Trying to bring someone back who's passed on, only to create abominations in their place

What better way to represent them than finally being able to achieve that goal of a true resurrection, built upon the many, many, many bodies they've had to sacrifice?

There's a reason that they fail. I don't see any good reason to take away a major part of a lot of Necromancer stories. Being doomed to failure, but refusing to give up and keep trying to bring back your dead loved one is what great stories are made of.

 

[ECMO3]

but why not?

Why should they?

I just think the game is more immersive when everyone can do the same kinds of things with weapons. I think it is more fun. It is more or less how the original Paladin and Ranger were integrated into 1E as well (could do everything a fighter can do and more).

i mean i don't object to the concept of weapon actions for everyone but i don't think it's equally true that there shouldn't be ones that some characters don't have the training to perform,

I don't object to weapon actions being rolled into a subclass and I would not object to trading attacks for weapon options, but that should apply for all classes. I would also not object to features for fighters that let them take weapon options instead of something else, like the current superior technique instead of another fighting style, or instead of taking extra attack at level 5,11 and 20 they could get a maneuver instead and be limited to 1 attack a turn.

it's like saying if you can learn a cantrip as a fighter you deserve 9th level fullcasting because it's all just magic right?

I think giving fighters full caster spell progression would be better than giving them unique weapon abilities through class. Giving them spells is not something I think we should do but I would like it more than weapon actions or effects.

 

[CleverNickName]

Necromancer can't even bring people back to life.

Glad I'm not the only one who had that thought. Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection are three of the most important Necromancy spells in the game--it always seemed weird that they are off-limits to someone literally called a Necromancer. It's like having a Telekinetic who can't cast Mage Hand or Telekinesis.

Ah well. I think it has less to do with the definition of a Necromancer, and more to do with protecting the Cleric's niche. Which is a dumb reason, but it's the best I've got.

 

[Undrave]

The fighters get some unique things through the class chassis and you are right I don't want them to have any more than they already have (and I could do with less personally).

If your fighters are doing the same thing as over and over that is because it is what you decide to do with them. Boring play is boring play and it is not exclusive to a given class. I can tell you I am not bored when I play a fighter and I am not doing the same thing turn after turn.

I am fine with putting maneuvers in a subclass and fighter subclasses have a lot going for them already, but I strongly object to the suggestion than my opinions on what is best for the game and most fun are a "problem".

What's the point of a class that does the same thing as everybody and doesn't get to be unique?

And sure, you can count Action Surge and Second Wind and stuff, but those are specific mechanics of 5e. What is the Fighter good for conceptually? What's its unique schtick concept that nobody else gets?

 

[Undrave]

Glad I'm not the only one who had that thought. Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection are three of the most important Necromancy spells in the game--it always seemed weird that they are off-limits to someone literally called a Necromancer.

Ah well. I think it has less to do with the definition of a Necromancer, and more to do with protecting the Cleric's niche.

If Wizard subclass had more meat we could have had a Pet Class Necromancer subclass who gets those spells later on (probably a level or two after the Cleric).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then they are wrong. The lore is arcane knowledge and book learned magic. That's their identity. Not their spell list.

The thing any rogue or bard can do better 3 editions deep?

We have different opinions about that. I personally love the schools and specializing in one of them. I have almost exclusively played specialist wizards(when I play a wizard) since 2e.

One of them like Evoconjuration?

Why do you think Necromancers should be able to resurrect? They are about animating the dead and creating all kinds of undead creatures, not bringing the dead to life.

I would say 'before your time', but I'm fairly sure you're older than me.

Basically 'necromancer' used to mean something more useful to the party than 'has a posse of pets that the party could steamroll at level 1' and 'stole a bunch of spells from evoconjuration'.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing any rogue or bard can do better 3 editions deep?

Yep. That they screwed up rogues and bards that way doesn't take away the wizard's identity.

One of them like Evoconjuration?

I don't know what that means.

I would say 'before your time', but I'm fairly sure you're older than me.

Basically 'necromancer' used to mean something more useful to the party than 'has a posse of pets that the party could steamroll at level 1' and 'stole a bunch of spells from evoconjuration'.

Yeah. The necromancy spells of 5e need reworking.