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

[James Gasik]

Yes. The whole game is more fun for it.

Well, I can't argue with an opinion, so for you this is obviously true. But it's not objectively true.

 

[ECMO3]

Well, I can't argue with an opinion, so for you this is obviously true. But it's not objectively true.

It is objectively true that the game is more popular since 3E.

 

[James Gasik]

Well to be fair a fighter can do all that too if he wants to, either through a subclass or a feat.

Sure but they have to spend more resources to get there, so it's kind of a wash. A Fighter could be an Eldritch Knight and take Spell Sniper. A Wizard could be a Bladesinger or get armor proficiencies.

Again, the advantages the Fighter has run into a brick wall that this is a party based game, and if the other party members are tapped out, the Fighter has to stop with them. Even the Barbarian can run out of Rages and become far less capable as a result.

This isn't a unique position, other classes have this same problem (Monks, Rogues, Warlocks), but there are more classes that prevent the Fighter from showing their true potential than not.

 

[ECMO3]

Sure but they have to spend more resources to get there, so it's kind of a wash.

And a Wizard needs to spend more resources to get extra attack and a fighting style.

Again, the advantages the Fighter has run into a brick wall that this is a party based game, and if the other party members are tapped out, the Fighter has to stop with them. Even the Barbarian can run out of Rages and become far less capable as a result.

Even with rages a fighter is more capable than a Barbarian at most levels.

 

[James Gasik]

It is objectively true that the game is more popular since 3E.

Sure. But you can't draw a line from "Fighters who lack cool abilities they can specialize in" to "game is more popular." There's a lot of factors to consider. The game could be more popular in spite of the fact that Fighters are less fun to play now.

Certainly Fighters remain the most popular class to play in 5e, but there's also a large percentage of 5e players who never played a 3.5 Fighter, or never played with all the options available to them.

Again, it's your opinion, and it's obviously true for you, I can't argue with that. But that doesn't mean it's true for everyone. I don't think it is. It doesn't make me more or less correct- in my experience, the 5e Fighter is boring and falls kind of flat compared to other versions of the class.

Heck, I would argue the 2e Fighter is vastly superior to the 5e Fighter, due to a high amount of potential options and being more powerful with stronger niche protection.

 

[James Gasik]

And a Wizard needs to spend more resources to get extra attack and a fighting style.

Again, it's a wash because class A is spending resources to have the advantages of class B. If you're using a resource to get the benefits of class A as class B or vice versa, there is no difference.

Even with rages a fighter is more capable than a Barbarian at most levels.

That wasn't the point at all. The point is, if your party has a Barbarian and a Fighter, when the Barbarian runs out of Rages, he may wish to stop. If the party stops, the Fighter stops.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It is not worse than anyone else.

you are actively advocating for every class to have whatever the fighter gets and more. that would make fighters worse then anyone else.

Moreover you would play it because that is what you wanted to play, and if you wanted to play a more powerful class you would play a more powerful class.

the opportunity cost for any given class is the same. ideally, there should be no "more powerful" classes. given that the fighter is getting buffed (albeit quite anemically so) in 5.5, WOTC clearly agrees. there definitely should not be classes specifically designed to be worse then others. that is absurd.

Many people play fighters now, let me ask you - why do you think they play them?

in part because people enjoy the themes that can be explored with fighters, but moreso because they assume (incorrectly) that fighters are on par with all the other classes...because otherwise why would it be a full 20 level class put alongside every other main class?

this is also a problem with pretty much all the non-casters, but fighters are emblematic of it in the same way wizards are emblematic of caster supremacy.

Because Wizards train with weapons too

there's a massive difference between learning how to swing a staff without falling over and learning the ins and outs of grandmaster level combat - just like there's a massive difference between learning the basics of spellcasting or delving into the grandest secrets of the multiverse. this is...well, not even close to the most reductive reasoning i've ever seen, but it's still pretty reductive.

 

[Undrave]

No they should strike out to make the game fun and popular and the 5E rules ad the fighter class have that in spades.

How is it fun for people who like an archetype when it's the designated dud? That it gets outshined by folks who can do exactly all it does but get more goodies on top?

Well to start with I think that would be less immersive, but if you are going to make those mechanics why not make them available to all classes?

How is it less immersive that some people just don't have the training to do something in particular?

One of the many reasons 3E was not very fun is all the stupid crap that fighters could do with weapons because of their ridiculous number of feats.

I've never seen that opinion. Ever.

There is no reason all classes should be equally powerful and there is a disclaimer of sorts as the PHB states that Wizards are Supreme or something similar.

And it is hardly stupid design when it is immensely popular and fun to play.

There is no disclaimer.

Popularity doesn't mean a design is good, and FYI, I think 5e is balanced well enough for most people. You need to actualy think about what your doing for a Wizard to outshadow other classes.

And the reason is that it's not fun to be the dud.

Then why are you worried about the fighter being weaker?

Your dismissiveness of the Fighter is due to the lack of a strong identity. He's just a random guy with a sword to you who's not allowed to be special because 'he's just the fighter'. You don't care if the Fighter sucks because you don't care about the Fighter because it's no defined well enough so it ends up being the non-class in your mind. All the other martial class are just 'Fighter+Something Cool'. It shouldn't be that way, the Fighter should also get something cool that defines it.

No he shouldn't.

Why? The Fighter is the specialist, the one spending his time training hard. It's like saying every doctor can be a brain surgeon! The Fighter should be the brain surgeon of weapon wielding. Not everybody who does karate gets to be a black belt! It also works that way for weapons.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

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 agree. I also think that the playable Necromancer in a lot of video games (e.g., Diablo, Guild Wars, Elder Scrolls, etc.) is not just a master of death, but also life. In the Diablo franchise, for example, the Necromancer views themselves as the guardians of the balance and the natural cycle of life and death.

I have seen so many new players absolutely demoralized by the D&D's vision for the necromancer. It doesn't play like the necromancers they are used to in video games, and it's split between the Wizard and the Cleric.

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.

Since I mentioned Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, the game is likely on my mind. One of the thing that AE did was create a universal spell list. However, it divided spells of each level between Simple, Complex, and Exotic. Moreover, spells also had tags (e.g., heal, plant, fire, cold, earth, dragon, etc.). What this meant was that sometimes classes or (in effect) subclasses would define what you got from this universal spell list. For example, Magisters got all Simple and Complex spells to 9th level. Spellblades got all Simple spells to 6th level. Greenbonds got all Simple spells to 9th level as well as Complex spells with the Plant and Positive Energy tags.

I feel like that this would have potentially gone a some way in solving some of the issues that WotC had with trying to revise spells and spell lists in the One D&D playtest. So for example, maybe Bards get all Simple spells to 9th level as well as complex spells with the Enchantment/Mind/Sonic tags. But simple spells would also include a basic heal, which means that even Wizards can heal.

 

[Cadence]

I had a lot of fun playing a necromancer in 13th Age. A (returning) undead companion, ability to make temporary undead, spells that seemed to draw on underworld/death effects.

I don't mind a necromancer being able to heal people - and can see that fittint, but I don't have anything in my picture of them that has them restore dead things to actual life. (Would a necromancer version for regeneration be more invoke lizard tail-like growth or more Frankenstein stitching).