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

[TwoSix]

That's a fine way to play if you like it.

I actually like being a knight or a bard or a monk. I like starting as one and getting better at it. I don't mind a subclass that lets me pick up small amounts of another archetype (like the monk/bard dancer or fighter/mage EK) if I want. It's a preference thing.

Well, that's the strong point of a system with strong archetypes but some flexibility, I feel; it lets those of us who want to pursue a chosen path do so, and those of us who want to pursue something unique also do so.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not doing homework for an Internet discussion. I stated a preference towards classes with strong archetypes like paladin, warlock or monk. You have tried twice to sell me on systems that do not do that as if to prove my preference is faulty. I have humored you by providing my general impressions, but I'm not about to learn a new system to provide criticism of it.

I'm not asking you to do your homework or learn a new system. I guess I just have the completely unreasonable expectation that you would ask follow-up questions in good faith about how the game works. My apologies for making such assumptions.

 

[Undrave]

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?

The Polearm is the best weapon. It also has reach but much better damage and you can combine it with Polearm Mastery and maybe Sentinel.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, that's the strong point of a system with strong archetypes but some flexibility, I feel; it lets those of us who want to pursue a chosen path do so, and those of us who want to pursue something unique also do so.

Then the class options are like tubes of paint for any kind of painting.

Each tube is a discrete and vivid color.

One can blend them if one wants, or heighten the vividness of a particular color.

 

[TwoSix]

Then the class options are like tubes of paint for any kind of painting.

Each tube is a discrete and vivid color.

One can blend them if one wants, or heighten the vividness of a particular color.

Yea, that's right kind of imagery for me. You can start out with the classic Crayola 8, but eventually your character can become a #9AB10F.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

I thin the closest analogy would be:

You allow each pc to start with a magic item. If they're a weapon-using class, it's a magic weapon. They have three choices:

+3 weapon
Flame Tongue (+2d6 fire damage)
Moon Blade (only glows)

They all glow as bright as a torch.

The third option is basically pointless and shouldn't be offered, lest new players think there's a specific reason why someone wouldn't want a better weapon.

 

[Maxperson]

no they don't get extra money, fighters might have feats to customise what they do have but that's not extra stuff they get, they're still fundamentally miles behind in 'build points' to some other classes, fighter has like Combat:6/10, Exploration:1/10, Social 2/10 with feats serving as maybe 2 extra points to assign, but a wizard has like Combat:8/10, Exploration:9/10, Social 7/10 because they have a secret 'magic' stat that passively buffs all their capabilities in the areas they can pick up spells for.

there are classes who are behind who don't get extra money for gas.

You aren't understanding the analogy. Yes. Yes they do get extra money for gas in this analogy. That they don't have air conditioning(social) and power windows(exploration) are different issues.

 

[Maxperson]

I thin the closest analogy would be:

You allow each pc to start with a magic item. If they're a weapon-using class, it's a magic weapon. They have three choices:

+3 weapon
Flame Tongue (+2d6 fire damage)
Moon Blade (only glows)

They all glow as bright as a torch.

The third option is basically pointless and shouldn't be offered, lest new players think there's a specific reason why someone wouldn't want a better weapon.

Those choices don't really represent completely. These are better choices.

+3 weapon
Flame Tongue (+2d6 fire damage)
Blade of Visions +0 (allows scrying 1x day and clairvoyance 1x day)

The latter doesn't do diddly extra for combat other than be a magic weapon. Yet a player might want it because it will be good in other areas. Just because it's a gas guzzler(not great in combat) doesn't make it a poor choice.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You aren't understanding the analogy. Yes. Yes they do get extra money for gas in this analogy. That they don't have air conditioning(social) and power windows(exploration) are different issues.

I think the analogy is being more of a hindrance than a help to conveying information at this point

The main issue is the classes aren’t designed with equal ‘build points’ to their names, what a fighter can just do in combat, which is near most of all of what they do, it will never measure up in usefulness to everything else some other classes can do.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Those choices don't really represent completely. These are better choices.

+3 weapon
Flame Tongue (+2d6 fire damage)
Blade of Visions +0 (allows scrying 1x day and clairvoyance 1x day)

The latter doesn't do diddly extra for combat other than be a magic weapon. Yet a player might want it because it will be good in other areas. Just because it's a gas guzzler(not great in combat) doesn't make it a poor choice.

No their analogy was accurate, because right now there are some classes that are simply worse off