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

[CreamCloud0]

And that list for me is: barbarian, druid, ranger, monk, paladin and warlock. Those aren't base classes; those are subclasses. You could potentially add Artificer to that list as well.

i very much disagree that those aren't class concepts, but at the same time i'm not saying they couldn't also be subclass concepts, there's no reason to make them exclusive to being only one thing or the other, let me have my Fighter: artificer archetype, my Druid: circle of the primal fist, or my Rogue: beserker shadow

 

[Remathilis]

You don't want a base class to be saddled with a lot of identity. Base classes should be broad archetypes. It should be possible to build a party of six characters with the same base class, where each character had a very distinctive identity. If you can't do that, the problem is that your base class has too much identity.

And in fact, in the list you gave the biggest problem isn't classes with too little identity, but classes that have too much identity and need to be made more generic so that their current identity becomes just one of many possible identities.

And that list for me is: barbarian, druid, ranger, monk, paladin and warlock. Those aren't base classes; those are subclasses. You could potentially add Artificer to that list as well.

Absolutely disagree. Classes should represent specific archetypes and be built to handle that archetype. If you melt a bunch of classes into some bland, generic base class you end up with two options:

1. You turn the former class into a few features that define the whole archetype. The barbarian becomes the "rage" mechanic for the fighter and you lose all the development that comes with 20 levels of features and multiple subclasses.

2. You develop complex subclasses that overtake the base class with multiple features and options, which is just re-creating the class but lumped under a generic umbrella name.

I'd rather 25 base classes with knights, spellblades, witches, and shamans in the mix than picking the "spellcaster" class and "warlock" subclass and then pretend my patron and pact mean something.

 

[Undrave]

I'd rather 25 base classes with knights, spellblades, witches, and shamans in the mix than picking the "spellcaster" class and "warlock" subclass and then pretend my patron and pact mean something.

Same here. I'd rather have a ton of specific class than 4 generic ones.

 

[Yaarel]

Here’s the thing. You can make a great game with hyper specific classes. You can make a great game with completely generic classes.

Trying to isolate class specificity or genericicity alone as the determiner of good design is the problem. Its really about how everything works together.

If 5e has a problem it’s that class+subclass combos are about 99% of your character customization while maintaining a design principle of little to no overlap between the class+subclass combos. There either needs to be a lot more customization options outside class and subclass or there needs to be a lot more hybrid class and subclasses.

Example: Fighter+Rogue style subclass make an amazing subclass. Why the heck don’t we have something like that?

I would be cool if the Fighter can take levels in the Rogue class for the subclass levels. It requires design update because classes are frontloaded with extra design space at level 1, but it is easy to split this design space into level 0 and level 1, routinely for every class. Starting at level 1 includes the level 0 features. The level 0 features are generally rudimentary, such as mages starting with cantrips as part of level 0. Then a Fighter who uses subclass levels to take an other class must start with level 0, before going on to level 1. Obviously the Rogue Sneak Attack comes later.

(It would be even cooler if all classes take subclass levels at the same time, like they take feats at the same time: subclass levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18. Fill out any missing subclass levels with a choice of feat or a level in an other class or subclass.)

 

[ECMO3]

Absolutely disagree. Classes should represent specific archetypes and be built to handle that archetype. If you melt a bunch of classes into some bland, generic base class you end up with two options:

1. You turn the former class into a few features that define the whole archetype. The barbarian becomes the "rage" mechanic for the fighter and you lose all the development that comes with 20 levels of features and multiple subclasses.

2. You develop complex subclasses that overtake the base class with multiple features and options, which is just re-creating the class but lumped under a generic umbrella name.

I'd rather 25 base classes with knights, spellblades, witches, and shamans in the mix than picking the "spellcaster" class and "warlock" subclass and then pretend my patron and pact mean something.

This makes multiclassing a lot more complicated though and also more necessary.

Whether we have 1 class or 25 classes one thing I don't want is a strong theme tied to or bounded by class mechanics. You can have some thematic fluff (the Warlock and his Patron, the Paladin and his oath, the fighter and his mastery of weapons) but the tie between that theme and the mechanics should be weak and able to largely be ignored in play (or not ignored as the player wants).

The class mechanics should stand on their own and should be a tool for a character to use to build the identity for that specific character and going against the class stereotype should be easy to do through race, feat and subclass options, not difficult.

 

[Aldarc]

I'd rather 25 base classes with knights, spellblades, witches, and shamans in the mix than picking the "spellcaster" class and "warlock" subclass and then pretend my patron and pact mean something.

Same here. I'd rather have a ton of specific class than 4 generic ones.

I'm just making discussion here, but what would you think of a Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard solution?

In what I guess we can call the "Shadow System," you initially choose one of four novice paths at level one: Mage, Priest, Rogue, or Warrior. You get abilities for your novice path at levels 1-2 and 5. You then choose an expert path, and you gain abilities for your expert path at levels 3-4, 6, and 9. There are a lot more expert paths (~40), including the paladin, berserker, gladiator, friar, cleric, psychic, elementalist, wizard, bard, thief, etc. Then finally you get a master path, and you gain abilities for these paths at level 7-8 and 10. There are 120 master paths in the core book, and these are a lot more specialized.

Moreover, you can also mix and match these options as you wish. For example, you don't need to pick the Priest to take up the Cleric (expert) or High Priest (master). So you could, again for example, build your character as a Rogue/Cleric/Archmage or a Warrior/Druid/Sniper.

 

[Yaarel]

Organizing the spell schools more carefully and consistently − and thematically! − helps divide the Wizard into its separable classes. Each class accesses about three schools. Plus all casters have the "Dweomer" school.


Elemental Schools
• Evocation = elemental energy = Air (Lightning-Thunder), Water (Cold), Fire (Fire, Radiant), Become Energy
• Transmutation = elemental matter = Earth (Weapon), Primordial (Acid), Plant, Animal, Shapeshift

Planar Schools
• Conjuration = Astral, Celestial, Fey
• Necromancy = Aberration, Fiend, Shadow

Telekinetic Schools
• Dunomancy = Spirit of Soul = Ethereal = Force, Flight, Telekinesis, Simple Force Object (Wall of Force, Unseen Servant)
• Illusion = Realistic Object (typically made of light, sound, but also of ethereal force, thus solid, thermal, scented)

Psychic Schools
• Enchantment = Mind of Soul = Telepathy, Mind Alteration, Subjective Phantasm
• Divination = Space-Time = Prescience, Teleportation, Fate, Chronomancy, Scry, Knowledge


Universal School
• Dweomer = Magical Energy, Magical Aura, Detect Magic, Antimagic, Spell Disruption


Descriptor tags describe purpose in addition to one of the above schools

• Abjuration = Defense, Protecting, Blocking, Wall, Warding Away, Shielding From
• Mobility = Movement, Repositioning, Penetrating

• Healing = Healing, Morale, Vigor, Restoration, Resurrection
• Hex = Attack, Harm, Kill, Inflict Vulnerability

• Knowledge
• Stealth

• Summoning = Additional Autonomous Help

 

[Remathilis]

I'm just making discussion here, but what would you think of a Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard solution?

In what I guess we can call the "Shadow System," you initially choose one of four novice paths at level one: Mage, Priest, Rogue, or Warrior. You get abilities for your novice path at levels 1-2 and 5. You then choose an expert path, and you gain abilities for your expert path at levels 3-4, 6, and 9. There are a lot more expert paths (~40), including the paladin, berserker, gladiator, friar, cleric, psychic, elementalist, wizard, bard, thief, etc. Then finally you get a master path, and you gain abilities for these paths at level 7-8 and 10. There are 120 master paths in the core book, and these are a lot more specialized.

Moreover, you can also mix and match these options as you wish. For example, you don't need to pick the Priest to take up the Cleric (expert) or High Priest (master). So you could, again for example, build your character as a Rogue/Cleric/Archmage or a Warrior/Druid/Sniper.

This just sounds like prestige classes IMHO.

With the full caveat I have not investigated this system, I will address my general concern with a lot of similar ideas. If Shadow somehow addresses these, forgive me.

So, you start out with a base class: For the first few levels, you are functionally the same as every other PC of that base class. It doesn't matter that my character is a going to be a swashbuckler, gladiator, or paladin, for levels 1 and 2 I'm effectively a fighter. This is the current problem with subclasses ON STEROIDS. People already complain they have to wait three levels to pick their oath, sorcery origin, or patron. Now I have to wait three levels to even begin calling myself a paladin, sorcerer, or patron.

So now I'm level three and I'm a paladin. Great. I have the same abilities as every other paladin because oath no longer supplies granted abilities. All paladins get the same features. Granted, 5e only gives you 3-5 subclass features already to distinguish the oath of vengeance from the oath of domination, but we're effectively removing even those features. Subclasses in 5e already have to do so much lifting with so little room, they need more space to bring unique features, not less.

Which moves to part three: What is the ratio of class to subclass features. Already speaking, subclasses barely manage to add sufficient distinction to the classes as is, I could not imagine trying to fit the entirety of a monk into 4-5 levels. So on 20 levels (the classic amount for D&D) how many levels am I gaining paladin abilities vs generic warrior ones? Five? Ten? Fifteen? Five is too little, fifteen sounds like you're basically a core class anyway, and ten means half my levels are spent multiclassing into a class I didn't want to be anyway. My bard had to spend 10 levels being a generic rogue rather than being a bard.

Fourth, it forces all classes into four one-size-fits-all boxes. My barbarian has to wait three levels before getting his d12 HD. My monk has to wear armor and use weapons before he gets his kung-fu class features. My druid is casting regular priest magic before learning his special druid spells. My warlock has to have regular magic before becoming a pact-magic caster (actually, that wouldn't be so bad).

Of course, we could fix some of this by allowing the generic classes to get a bunch of customizable class features. Warriors get special combat styles that emulate skirmishing, leadership, smiting, rage, sneak attack, etc. Magic-users can pick their spell list from arcane, divine, primal, psionic, elemental, etc. We could add talent trees and feats, powers you choose every level. Those base classes become a collection of widgets you pick rather than having set features, and the subclasses give a fixed set of specific widgets tied to the theme.

But you have also just exponentially made character gen that much more complex. Rather than pick a class and have most of your choices mapped out, you are building your character every level with picking new features, preplanning paths that synergize with your choices, and watching for potentially OP/broken combos. Now, we could alleviate that by having the most common choices mapped out. Say, have the priest pick primal spells, wild shape channel divinity, and the druid subclass with the quick build "detect wildlife" and "resist poison" features. We could map them out for all 20 levels so that if someone didn't want to fiddle with charOps, they could just pick a path that has all the options balanced with thematic ties...

Oh crap, I just invented classes. Again.

Which is why I'd rather have a wide selection of already made classes so that I could go "I wanna be a knight" and then maybe a little later on decide if I'm a commander, a samurai, or a cavalier. Its not perfect, but I haven't seen a system that balances simplicity with customizability yet. Especially when all I want to do is make a paladin at level 1 and smite stuff.

 

[Aldarc]

This just sounds like prestige classes IMHO.

With the full caveat I have not investigated this system, I will address my general concern with a lot of similar ideas. If Shadow somehow addresses these, forgive me.

So, you start out with a base class: For the first few levels, you are functionally the same as every other PC of that base class. It doesn't matter that my character is a going to be a swashbuckler, gladiator, or paladin, for levels 1 and 2 I'm effectively a fighter. This is the current problem with subclasses ON STEROIDS. People already complain they have to wait three levels to pick their oath, sorcery origin, or patron. Now I have to wait three levels to even begin calling myself a paladin, sorcerer, or patron.

So now I'm level three and I'm a paladin. Great. I have the same abilities as every other paladin because oath no longer supplies granted abilities. All paladins get the same features. Granted, 5e only gives you 3-5 subclass features already to distinguish the oath of vengeance from the oath of domination, but we're effectively removing even those features. Subclasses in 5e already have to do so much lifting with so little room, they need more space to bring unique features, not less.

Which moves to part three: What is the ratio of class to subclass features. Already speaking, subclasses barely manage to add sufficient distinction to the classes as is, I could not imagine trying to fit the entirety of a monk into 4-5 levels. So on 20 levels (the classic amount for D&D) how many levels am I gaining paladin abilities vs generic warrior ones? Five? Ten? Fifteen? Five is too little, fifteen sounds like you're basically a core class anyway, and ten means half my levels are spent multiclassing into a class I didn't want to be anyway. My bard had to spend 10 levels being a generic rogue rather than being a bard.

Fourth, it forces all classes into four one-size-fits-all boxes. My barbarian has to wait three levels before getting his d12 HD. My monk has to wear armor and use weapons before he gets his kung-fu class features. My druid is casting regular priest magic before learning his special druid spells. My warlock has to have regular magic before becoming a pact-magic caster (actually, that wouldn't be so bad).

Of course, we could fix some of this by allowing the generic classes to get a bunch of customizable class features. Warriors get special combat styles that emulate skirmishing, leadership, smiting, rage, sneak attack, etc. Magic-users can pick their spell list from arcane, divine, primal, psionic, elemental, etc. We could add talent trees and feats, powers you choose every level. Those base classes become a collection of widgets you pick rather than having set features, and the subclasses give a fixed set of specific widgets tied to the theme.

But you have also just exponentially made character gen that much more complex. Rather than pick a class and have most of your choices mapped out, you are building your character every level with picking new features, preplanning paths that synergize with your choices, and watching for potentially OP/broken combos. Now, we could alleviate that by having the most common choices mapped out. Say, have the priest pick primal spells, wild shape channel divinity, and the druid subclass with the quick build "detect wildlife" and "resist poison" features. We could map them out for all 20 levels so that if someone didn't want to fiddle with charOps, they could just pick a path that has all the options balanced with thematic ties...

Oh crap, I just invented classes. Again.

Which is why I'd rather have a wide selection of already made classes so that I could go "I wanna be a knight" and then maybe a little later on decide if I'm a commander, a samurai, or a cavalier. Its not perfect, but I haven't seen a system that balances simplicity with customizability yet. Especially when all I want to do is make a paladin at level 1 and smite stuff.

Keep in mind that the Shadow games are not 5e D&D. I think you are presuming a lot of things here and projecting 5e into Shadow of the Weird Wizard, which is not the right approach for this discussion. Like if I looked at the 5e Fighter and started kevetching that it lacked all the things that a World of Warcraft warrior had. You would probably reprimand me by reminding me - gently, I'm sure - that I should not go into 5e D&D expecting to play WoW classes as if they were one and the same.

Let's take level 1. You pick a Fighter. You will be the same as other Fighters at level 1. At level 2, you will get your choice of combat style. There are 12 of them. At level 5, among other things, you will get your choice of a second Fighter combat style.

So at level 3, you get your choice of expert path. Yes, if you pick Paladin, then you will have the same features as other Paladins. But I would say that the SotWW Paladin is more akin to picking the Paladin with the Devoted Subclass. I would also remind you that one of the reasons why we have so many subclasses is simply to encourage you to stay in your single class.

But is a Paladin really the best option for your character anyway? Because maybe you want to pick the Paladin at first as your expert path, but then see the Holy Avenger, the Templar, the Inquisitor, and the Godsworn. Or maybe you see that your Fighter in the cause of nature and therefore may want to take the Warden, the Druid, or even the Witch.

I would say that the Master path is more akin to the Prestige Class.

Keep in mind that there are 10 levels. So will you not be waiting to hit max level at the same rate as you would in D&D. You are also not going to get the same number of features since D&D has learned not to give dead levels across 20 levels of a class.

But I would recommend taking a look at the list of Novice, Expert, and Master paths in Shadow of the Demon Lord. SotWW is a new game. SotDL has had a LOT of supplements.

 

[Shardstone]

After thinking on it, reading these posts, pacing, wondering, sketching images of my thoughts in the margins of old textbooks, I've realized...

Yep, the answer is still wizard.