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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

This is why I mentioned above that you need good subsystems for the things you want in the game, then make classes that mechanically link into them, just like classes link into the combat and spellcasting subsystems.

 

[ECMO3]

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. \

The reason people are attacking your analogy is because the analogy does have merit.

People regularly make choices that are strictly worse than other available choices IRL.

In game players make strictly poor choices in mechanical builds, in role play and in tactical decisions and they often do it knowing it is a bad choice. As a matter of fact, I think the number of actual "optimal" choices made in game is relatively low compared to the number of "bad" choices.

It is part of freedom and in game it is part of player agency. Anyone who plays a weak character, chooses a weak spell or feat does not optimize or uses/attacks with a weaker weapon is choosing not to exercise a strictly better choice and that kind of stuff happens all the time in game.

There are some (I would say a small minority) who do not do this and for them it does not present a "real choice" for those players. Those players want the best class, best weapon, most powerful spells. For them it is not a choice with merit, just like the gas-guzzler 4x4 is not a real choice for someone focused on more practical concerns like efficiency or size. But that is specific to that player.

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.

But even if it is a bad choice. it is still a choice, and it is a choice that has merit. I have played many PCs who used a whip often. One of the PCs I played got a whip with their background and was not even proficient in it and he still used it.

Using a Whip is not wrong or bad play and there is no reason to take that choice away even though it is an objectively bad choice for many builds.

Also as an aside a whip is an ideal weapon on a Paladin. In terms of building a powerful Paladin character it is the best and most powerful weapon to build around because of the interplay mechanics of Wrathful Smite. I believe the only time this is not the case is if you are playing a Bugbear Paladin.

And this begets a point here; those people who play Paladins and are NOT choosing a whip (which is most) - are they making a choice without merit?

 

[Vaalingrade]

The reason people are attacking your analogy is because it does have merit.

More because it's Enworld and linguistic analysis sometimes far eclipses discussing the point here.

 

[Aldarc]

More because it's Enworld and linguistic analysis sometimes far eclipses discussing the point here.

I have never before seen dictionaries so thoroughly misunderstood and abused as I have here in the ENWorld forums.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Nah. Whips just sucked!

It's also not what we are saying. What we are saying is that the gas guzzler is the fighter who wants to use a short sword or mace with his shield, instead of the optimal longsword and board or two-handed sword and no shield fighters.

Are those choices as good for damage? No they are not. The short sword is quicker, though and maybe the DM uses weapon speeds, and the mace is better against skeletons and the player is thinking ahead.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Which in 5e means that they have a ton of gold and nothing to spend it on but gas!!

But seriously, they do get the extra money, because things are often give and take. If instead of taking a combat feat I want to take Dungeon Delver because it fits my character vision better, I am paying more for gas(less effectiveness in combat) in order to be better off road(be better out of combat with traps and finding secret doors.

 

[Horwath]

Which in 5e means that they have a ton of gold and nothing to spend it on but gas!!

But seriously, they do get the extra money, because things are often give and take. If instead of taking a combat feat I want to take Dungeon Delver because it fits my character vision better, I am paying more for gas(less effectiveness in combat) in order to be better off road(be better out of combat with traps and finding secret doors.

maybe dungeon delver can be redesigned so it can be useful in combat and out of combat also.

 

[Maxperson]

maybe dungeon delver can be redesigned so it can be useful in combat and out of combat also.

Why? 5e is so easy and forgiving in combat that the difference between a prime stat of 14 and 18 isn't even really noticeable over the long haul. 5e isn't the D&D setting of yesteryear where every +1 mattered. They got off the +X treadmill.

Let people be better in some areas than others. Bounded accuracy means that you don't need to be the best at everything everywhere all at once. Everyone is still going to be pretty effective at everything.

 

[Horwath]

Why? 5e is so easy and forgiving in combat that the difference between a prime stat of 14 and 18 isn't even really noticeable over the long haul. 5e isn't the D&D setting of yesteryear where every +1 mattered. They got off the +X treadmill.

Let people be better in some areas than others. Bounded accuracy means that you don't need to be the best at everything everywhere all at once. Everyone is still going to be pretty effective at everything.

why not?
a simple floating +1 ASI can be pasted on dungeon delver and it still would be a semi bad feat, but with possibility to turn your primary stat from 17 to 18 at earliest opportunity would make more desirable feat for rogues(or other scouts).

 

[Maxperson]

why not?
a simple floating +1 ASI can be pasted on dungeon delver and it still would be a semi bad feat, but with possibility to turn your primary stat from 17 to 18 at earliest opportunity would make more desirable feat for rogues(or other scouts).

You're missing the entire point. It's not a bad feat. It's just one that you don't like because your personal priority is combat. You like good gas mileage. I don't care about combat, because those few extra plusses in combat don't matter enough to notice. I want a gas guzzler that will take me off road where I can really have fun

Feats and other things shouldn't force me to have good gas mileage just because that's what you personally prefer.