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

[ECMO3]

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.

No it isn't. A Polearm is 1 point of damage per hit better than a Whip and dueling and you have a worse AC which means you are more vulnerable to taking hits and losing concentration.

Further unless you start with an 18+ strength, if you use 2 feats with PAM and Sentinel you are doing over 1 Damage less per hit then you would be with a Whip since your strength is 4 points lower (and you are missing more often). Even when you add in the bonus action attack at 8th level per round it is 12-33 (avg 22.5) PAM using a bonus action with a 16 strength vs 16-24 (avg 20) without using a bonus action and a 20 strength. That is if all of them hit and doesn't account for the worse chance to hit.

Also, the main reason you want reach is Wrathful Smite, and that conflicts with your PAM bonus action.

You do get reaction attacks from PAM and Sentinel and that makes up some damage but not enough.

I am not saying that PAM+Sentinel is bad, but it is not generally optimal for a Paladin under 11th level. Wrathful Smite is one of the best 1st level spells in the game, it is almost as broken as the Shield spell when used with a reach weapon. That is why they are changing it in the ONE. On a Paladin the most effective way to use it is with a Shield, and therefore a Whip (unless you are a bugbear).

When you hit 11th level and enemy saves become better, legendaries become more common and you add improved divine smite things change, but below 11th level it is not generally optimal.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

That's not what the analogy was meant to show, though:

An objectively worse option shouldn't be included.

 

[Yaarel]

That's not what the analogy was meant to show, though:

An objectively worse option shouldn't be included.

Yeah. Any objectively worse option is something that needs an update to fix.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not what the analogy was meant to show, though:

An objectively worse option shouldn't be included.

Sure, but I haven't yet seen one in 5e. Not even the fighter qualifies, because if you enjoy the class, it's the best option as it still does well.

 

[Maxperson]

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

That depends on what you are looking at. There is no bad feat, class or subclass option in 5e. Not even the fighter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sure, but I haven't yet seen one in 5e. Not even the fighter qualifies, because if you enjoy the class, it's the best option as it still does well.

Just because it is liked that doesn’t make it not sub-par or incapable of receiving improvements to make it as worthwhile as other classes, do that and chances are it’ll be liked more.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That depends on what you are looking at. There is no bad feat, class or subclass option in 5e. Not even the fighter.

That is a very very bold claim IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

Just because it is liked that doesn’t make it not sub-par or incapable of receiving improvements to make it as worthwhile as other classes, do that and chances are it’ll be liked more.

There nothing objectively bad, because all criteria people use are subjective. They like combat. They like fighters to have everything in class and not use magic items. They like spells. They don't like spells. One you put your subjective preference in as the criterion being measured, sure you can come up with X is worse than Y.

Whatever you can come up with as subpar, is based on someone's preference. It's not objectively subpar.

Now, that doesn't mean that sometimes improvements shouldn't happen. If enough people like things a certain way and the class isn't that way, it should be changed. Fighter is in that category with regard to social and exploration. It's just not an objectively bad class choice as it currently stands.

Edit: the first paragraph should have included that 5e's bounded accuracy prevents characters from being ineffective in any pillar like 3e allowed. Within the bounds of bounded accuracy, no class is an objectively bad choice.

 

[Maxperson]

That is a very very bold claim IMO.

It's also a very very true claim. How you decide to measure one feat against another will be based on your subjective preference. You can based on your subjective preferences measure things so that they come out as bad choices for you, but you can't then apply it to other people who have different preferences.

 

[James Gasik]

So, ok, I shouldn't, but I'll bite. Who is taking Weapon Master, and why would they prioritize it?