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

[CleverNickName]

I've played with the idea of removing spell lists altogether. Like, when your character learns a 1st level spell, they can select it from any class list. The key ability for those spells is still determined by your class, but all spells are considered to be "on your class list."

I haven't tested it on the player's side of things, but I've been testing it with NPCs on my side of the DM screen and it works just fine. So far, the only "issue" I've had is confusion for my metagaming players. "Wait, how can he cast Spirit Guardians AND Eldritch Blast? You told us we couldn't multiclass!" But I'm 100% fine with subverting player expectations.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

I thnk that's just because we've shoved necromancer into wizard. It should probably be it's own class, really.

 

[CleverNickName]

I thnk that's just because we've shoved necromancer into wizard. It should probably be it's own class, really.

My favorite solution would be to make "Necromancer" a single subclass available to all spellcasters, and then let the player decide if they want to be a creepy undead-maker, a benevolent life-giver, a gothy dead-speaker, a paranormal ghost-hunter, or a musical spirit-summoner through the spells they choose.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've played with the idea of removing spell lists altogether. Like, when your character learns a 1st level spell, they can select it from any class list. The key ability for those spells is still determined by your class, but all spells are considered to be "on your class list."

I haven't tested it on the player's side of things, but I've been testing it with NPCs on my side of the DM screen and it works just fine. So far, the only "issue" I've had is confusion for my metagaming players. "Wait, how can he cast Spirit Guardians AND Eldritch Blast? You told us we couldn't multiclass!" But I'm 100% fine with subverting player expectations.

Waaaay back when, after the d20 SRD was released but before 3.0e DnD came out, there was Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. It used this idea: there is one spell list, and like four different ways to access it.

I never actually played so I can't tell you if it worked.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

How is 'the skilled classes are good at skills' screwing up?

Especially since only you define the wizard this way?

I don't know what that means.

Here is a picture of evocation.

Here is a picture of conjuration.

They are the same picture. Thus Evoconjuration.

I know how they're supposed to be defined, it's just a bad definition and we're allowed to just make up definitions anyway.

Yeah. The necromancy spells of 5e need reworking.

To say the least, yes.

 

[Mecheon]

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.

But imagine the stooryline potential of getting the resserecting people spell at max level, well beyond the point other classes do. Was it worth it? All the struggle, the death?

You don't get Wish for this, mind. No just 'whoops wish can bring people back to life" for this hypothetical necromancer I'm thinking

 

[Vaalingrade]

I feel like a true love story would involve the necromancer learning to love their SO despite them being an abomination unto the lord. That's the real magic.

 

[MGibster]

Historically speaking, a necromancer didn't raise the dead. They communicated with the dead, or with spirits, or even with demons but they didn't bring life to the dead. It's wholly appropriate for them to be Wizards instead of Clerics.

 

[TwoSix]

I've played with the idea of removing spell lists altogether. Like, when your character learns a 1st level spell, they can select it from any class list. The key ability for those spells is still determined by your class, but all spells are considered to be "on your class list."

I haven't tested it on the player's side of things, but I've been testing it with NPCs on my side of the DM screen and it works just fine. So far, the only "issue" I've had is confusion for my metagaming players. "Wait, how can he cast Spirit Guardians AND Eldritch Blast? You told us we couldn't multiclass!" But I'm 100% fine with subverting player expectations.

I imagine you would see a decrease in Wizards. Which doesn't really sound that bad.

 

[Maxperson]

How is 'the skilled classes are good at skills' screwing up?

They should not be able to be better than the class that is supposed to be the best at it. Or maybe the wizard just needs a boost. Either way, it's still part of the wizard's identity.

Here is a picture of evocation.

Here is a picture of conjuration.

They are the same picture. Thus Evoconjuration.

I know how they're supposed to be defined, it's just a bad definition and we're allowed to just make up definitions anyway.

Okay. I see what you mean. And I agree with you that too many conjuration spells are doing damage like evocation spells. It's probably a side effect of WotC balancing combat by resource attrition vs. bags of hit points.