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

[Remathilis]

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.

Keep in mind I began my statement with:

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.

I then proceeded to discuss how such a system would work in D&D in some hypothetical next edition using 5e as the basis.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

This is definitely a salient point. I'm in broad agreement with @Remathilis that I would like to see more distinct customization available at character creation, in general. (That might require the starting point of zero-to-hero to be higher than "zero", but I'm ok with that.)

But I'm not a fan of choices you make at session 1 continuing to constrain and direct your character's growth at session 10, which is my big problem with D&D's class system and an issue that the Shadow system nicely alleviates.

 

[Maxperson]

I think this actually serves my point- if we know humans are capable of making bad choices when presented with options, then in a team game where everyone works together to complete the same goals there's very little reason to not make all the choices the best ones they can be.

I don't think it does serve your point. Your point seems to be colored by your biases. The person buying the gas guzzler may have plenty of money for gas and really want this awesome 4 wheel off road monster to go have fun with. For him it's a great choice! And the high mileage small car would be a horrible choice for what he wants.

 

[Aldarc]

This is definitely a salient point. I'm in broad agreement with @Remathilis that I would like to see more distinct customization available at character creation, in general. (That might require the starting point of zero-to-hero to be higher than "zero", but I'm ok with that.)

But I'm not a fan of choices you make at session 1 continuing to constrain and direct your character's growth at session 10, which is my big problem with D&D's class system and an issue that the Shadow system nicely alleviates.

I don't think that the Shadow system is "THE solution" to the problem or, really, the problems as there are a series of related potential problems involved. I was, however, curious about what someone like @Remathilis would think about such a solution of the Shadow system, which has both basic classes but also hyper-specialized ones.

IMHO, there is no "THE solution." I enjoy SotWW, but I also enjoyed True20, where there were just three classes (Warrior, Expert, Adept) that you could multiclass between for feats and talents to build your character concept. I enjoy WWN, where you have three classes (Warrior, Expert, Mage), but there is both a hybrid class and you can switch out your class for a more focused one (e.g., Elementalist, Healer, Necromancer, etc.). It really depends on what the game is going for. And you know that I would definitely be interested in your idea, albeit for a different game than D&D probably, of a more MOBA or WC3 style game where you have a lot of character options, you jump into the class fantasy with abilities pretty quickly, but you can also get loot to customize or vary things up as you play.

In my humble and controversial opinion, the problem with classes for a game like D&D stems from presenting itself as the big-tent entry point for a generic fantasy adventure roleplaying games. This comes with a number of class issues as it is balancing tradition with evolution, having too many with having enough, and the generic with the hyper-specific. I don't think that D&D is doing that great a job at this, if I am being honest, but I also recognize that changing this would be an uphill battle that would leave a fanbase that is quickly angered by change upset.

To me, for example, the question of where do you get your magic from - bookish studying, freaky accident, a magical patron, music, gods, etc. - is not all that interesting. This would not be my basis for creating classes, especially if I was going to slap on the same basic spell-casting system on everyone.

What I think that a game like Magic: The Gathering* or a lot of MMOs, ARPGs, or other video games get right is that they often understand that player choice for class is often about playstyle and aesthetics. IMHO, a lot of those common playstyles and aesthetics map pretty well, though not always perfectly, to the five colors of MtG, which are designed with both in mind. Want to be the dark edge lord caster? Black. Want to be the support-focused white mage? White. Want to be a nature mage? Green. Want to be the caster that just wants to makes things go boom and roll damage dice? Red. Want to be the smarty-pants with counters and brains? Blue. These are common enough playstyles/aesthetics that I regularly got new players in D&D asking for some variation of "What should I play if I want X?" with X being one of the above.

While one could vaguely map these things to some of the D&D classes, I think that the similarity is mostly superficial with little mechanical support to back these things up and sometimes the aesthetics are a bit schizophrenic (e.g., Warlock). I'm not saying that D&D should just do MtG either. I'm just pointing to it because I think that it does a better job of designing around playstyle and aesthetics.

* For the record, I think that it's almost criminal that the WotC has owned D&D for like 25 years but not had the D&D crew design a TTRPG from the ground up for Magic: The Gathering.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think it does serve your point. Your point seems to be colored by your biases. The person buying the gas guzzler may have plenty of money for gas and really want this awesome 4 wheel off road monster to go have fun with. For him it's a great choice! And the high mileage small car would be a horrible choice for what he wants.

Sigh. I really need to stop using analogies. Everyone wants to attack the analogy (even when I ask them not to) rather than the point itself.

Having a choice where some choices are bad and some choices are strictly better really doesn't have any merit. Saying "well, what if a player wants to make a sub-optimal choice?" is the kind of thing that led me back when I played 2e to make a Fighter specialized in the whip because I really liked Castlevania, without realizing that just because the whip exists in the game, and I have the option to specialize in it's use, doesn't make that a viable option.

The fact that someone can come up with a potential scenario where the whip might be good when the vast majority of the time it's bad doesn't make it a good choice.

...hell. I just made another analogy. I guess I should expect a lot of "actually, whips are very excellent choices in my experience" next.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think that the Shadow system is "THE solution" to the problem or, really, the problems as there are a series of related potential problems involved. I was, however, curious about what someone like @Remathilis would think about such a solution of the Shadow system, which has both basic classes but also hyper-specialized ones.

IMHO, there is no "THE solution." I enjoy SotWW, but I also enjoyed True20, where there were just three classes (Warrior, Expert, Adept) that you could multiclass between for feats and talents to build your character concept. I enjoy WWN, where you have three classes (Warrior, Expert, Mage), but there is both a hybrid class and you can switch out your class for a more focused one (e.g., Elementalist, Healer, Necromancer, etc.). It really depends on what the game is going for. And you know that I would definitely be interested in your idea, albeit for a different game than D&D probably, of a more MOBA or WC3 style game where you have a lot of character options, you jump into the class fantasy with abilities pretty quickly, but you can also get loot to customize or vary things up as you play.

In my humble and controversial opinion, the problem with classes for a game like D&D stems from presenting itself as the big-tent entry point for a generic fantasy adventure roleplaying games. This comes with a number of class issues as it is balancing tradition with evolution, having too many with having enough, and the generic with the hyper-specific. I don't think that D&D is doing that great a job at this, if I am being honest, but I also recognize that changing this would be an uphill battle that would leave a fanbase that is quickly angered by change upset.

To me, for example, the question of where do you get your magic from - bookish studying, freaky accident, a magical patron, music, gods, etc. - is not all that interesting. This would not be my basis for creating classes, especially if I was going to slap on the same basic spell-casting system on everyone.

What I think that a game like Magic: The Gathering* or a lot of MMOs, ARPGs, or other video games get right is that they often understand that player choice for class is often about playstyle and aesthetics. IMHO, a lot of those common playstyles and aesthetics map pretty well, though not always perfectly, to the five colors of MtG, which are designed with both in mind. Want to be the dark edge lord caster? Black. Want to be the support-focused white mage? White. Want to be a nature mage? Green. Want to be the caster that just wants to makes things go boom and roll damage dice? Red. Want to be the smarty-pants with counters and brains? Blue. These are common enough playstyles/aesthetics that I regularly got new players in D&D asking for some variation of "What should I play if I want X?" with X being one of the above.

While one could vaguely map these things to some of the D&D classes, I think that the similarity is mostly superficial with little mechanical support to back these things up and sometimes the aesthetics are a bit schizophrenic (e.g., Warlock). I'm not saying that D&D should just do MtG either. I'm just pointing to it because I think that it does a better job of designing around playstyle and aesthetics.

* For the record, I think that it's almost criminal that the WotC has owned D&D for like 25 years but not had the D&D crew design a TTRPG from the ground up for Magic: The Gathering.

personally i really think they could get alot of mileage from it if they did manage to divorce the spellcasting classes from their power sources/spell lists, have the classes act as build archetypes and spell lists as the theme (i'd separate spell lists into a few more themes too like elemental or undeath or draconic),

focus mainly on purely casting with a versatile spell selection? wizard!
something tanky in armour with weapons? cleric!
a more set spell list but want to play around with your spells a bit more? sorcerer!
want a class with a strong secondary resource mechanic? druid!
a short rest caster who is less dependent on resource management? warlock!

then you just add the apropriate power source to make your desired archetype, a divine wizard for the white mage classic, draconic warlock for someone who's power surges out in bursts, a primal sorcerer for a shaman drawing on the power of the wild.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This is definitely a salient point. I'm in broad agreement with @Remathilis that I would like to see more distinct customization available at character creation, in general. (That might require the starting point of zero-to-hero to be higher than "zero", but I'm ok with that.)

But I'm not a fan of choices you make at session 1 continuing to constrain and direct your character's growth at session 10, which is my big problem with D&D's class system and an issue that the Shadow system nicely alleviates.

I think it depends on the class some lend themselves more to wide customisation some to a few good subclasses and then nothing but patches so to speak.
I do not see it as a problem more just how some things have to be understood.

I don't think it does serve your point. Your point seems to be colored by your biases. The person buying the gas guzzler may have plenty of money for gas and really want this awesome 4 wheel off road monster to go have fun with. For him it's a great choice! And the high mileage small car would be a horrible choice for what he wants.

I think it is more that no one wants to buy the rusted scrap heap disguised as a car or buy a scam people like different things but no one wants to be ripped off.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think it does serve your point. Your point seems to be colored by your biases. The person buying the gas guzzler may have plenty of money for gas and really want this awesome 4 wheel off road monster to go have fun with. For him it's a great choice! And the high mileage small car would be a horrible choice for what he wants.

but in DnD the player doesn't GET extra money for gas, they're on exactly the same budget as everyone else.

Sigh. I really need to stop using analogies. Everyone wants to attack the analogy (even when I ask them not to) rather than the point itself.

Having a choice where some choices are bad and some choices are strictly better really doesn't have any merit. Saying "well, what if a player wants to make a sub-optimal choice?" is the kind of thing that led me back when I played 2e to make a Fighter specialized in the whip because I really liked Castlevania, without realizing that just because the whip exists in the game, and I have the option to specialize in it's use, doesn't make that a viable option.

The fact that someone can come up with a potential scenario where the whip might be good when the vast majority of the time it's bad doesn't make it a good choice.

...hell. I just made another analogy. I guess I should expect a lot of "actually, whips are very excellent choices in my experience" next.

do note, when people have asked for classes which aren't good in X scenario though, we're not asking for the gas guzzler that is unviable all over, we expect it to be just as useful as any other given class, just that we expect different classes to be useful at different things,

 

[James Gasik]

but in DnD the player doesn't GET extra money for gas, they're on exactly the same budget as everyone else.

do note, when people have asked for classes which aren't good in X scenario though, we're not asking for the gas guzzler that is unviable all over, we expect it to be just as useful as any other given class, just that we expect different classes to be useful at different things,

I understand that, but if the game isn't going to always present opportunities for those "different things" to matter equally, then isn't that a problem?

We know that 5e is weak when it comes to exploration, and the game has never been great at social interaction with NPC's (since people vastly prefer "roleplay" to trump dice rolls). So saying "hey, you get less combat ability to get more of these other things" feels like...something non-great, since I'm not about to use an analogy, lol.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I understand that, but if the game isn't going to always present opportunities for those "different things" to matter equally, then isn't that a problem?

honestly, no i don't think so, don't bring a barbarian to a socio-political campaign and be surprised when you're not useful consistently, there'll always been the dungeon campaign where you can slaughter cultists by the dozen for your barbarian to shine.

We know that 5e is weak when it comes to exploration, and the game has never been great at social interaction with NPC's (since people vastly prefer "roleplay" to trump dice rolls). So saying "hey, you get less combat ability to get more of these other things" feels like...something non-great, since I'm not about to use an analogy, lol.

yes the other areas of the game is weak, and the roleplay over rolls is one of my pet hates, like, CHA is one of your stats for a reason or would you rather i make you swing a longsword when you need to attack too so you don't need to invest in STR either?, but the way to fix things IMO is improving exploration and social mechanics themselves rather than changing classes to let everyone be good at everything equally. let the barbarian who invested everything in combat be a beast on the battlefield outstripping someone who decided for a more balanced build.