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

[Maxperson]

The Battlerager is the only subclass with a racial restriction left. They removed it from the Bladesinger so why not reprint the Battlerager without it?

They haven't gotten around to it? I think assuming that a lack of reprint is proof that they view it as a mistake is not accurate. They may view it that way, but lack of reprint is not what will show it.

 

[tetrasodium]

Bounded accuracy changed things. You can't make a bad decision in 5e. All classes and subclasses do very well. All you can do is be unhappy with one for your own personal reasons. This isn't the edition of yesteryear where every plus mattered and you could be ineffective.

In a way though that actually makes the original problem you note into one that is much worse. Rather than being able to compare two or three or five or six options that could each tout the (in)significance of their pros and cons in subjective terms we have what is often little more than an objective 1:1 comparison of the same metric.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No they aren't. At least not objectively. Bad for your subjective criterion comparison? Sure. You can personally view them as bad for whatever you are choosing to compare them over. What you can't do, though, is make them a bad choice for me compared to any option. You simply do not have that ability.

The ability to heal is good stuff. Expertise in persuasion is awesome. Go go gadget fighter social! Giving extra attacks when I action surge is pretty good. Granting indomitable to an ally is also good.

You don't get to tell me that those are worse for me than any other subclass choice. You can only make that subjective decision for yourself.

I would also note that the number of people who agree with you (and I know @Remathilis 's opinion here is the popular one on the Internet) does not change how correct or incorrect that opinion is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Considering neither have EVER be reprinted, it seems that WotC also considers them a mistake.

And that matters why? WotC's choices are based on popularity, because THAT metric translates into $$$. It still doesn't make that opinion more or less correct.

 

[Undrave]

And that matters why? WotC's choices are based on popularity, because THAT metric translates into $$$. It still doesn't make that opinion more or less correct.

Well, it certainly means they fail to excite people if they're not popular enough. Gotta be a reason for that.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

No they aren't. At least not objectively. Bad for your subjective criterion comparison? Sure.

that's not what "objective" means. you can't look at an objective evaluation of something and go "well, you chose the criterion, so it's not objective". of course you have to start with selecting the criterion - what makes an evaluation objective or not is how you go about examining that criteria (namely, whether or not you set aside your biases when doing so and simply look at what the thing is).

at most, you could argue that people should specify what criteria they're making an evaluation with, and sure, there's definitely no problem in wanting to know that. but arguing what is or is not objective from a faulty definition of objectivity isn't helpful.

You can personally view them as bad for whatever you are choosing to compare them over. What you can't do, though, is make them a bad choice for me compared to any option. You simply do not have that ability.

i mean, sure, i guess we don't have that ability. the actual mechanics do, though (and i guess by extension your DM, since they can change those).

The ability to heal is good stuff. Expertise in persuasion is awesome. Go go gadget fighter social! Giving extra attacks when I action surge is pretty good. Granting indomitable to an ally is also good.

interesting that you didn't even attempt to defend the battlerager (and, no, i'm not going to attack your assessment of the banneret, because i don't really care - someone else can do that if they really want to).

You don't get to tell me that those are worse for me than any other subclass choice.

i mean, we definitely can. not only do we have the freedom to do that, but people are generally capable of at least attempting to evaluate if one option is better or worse for another person to take.

 

[Maxperson]

In a way though that actually makes the original problem you note into one that is much worse. Rather than being able to compare two or three or five or six options that could each tout the (in)significance of their pros and cons in subjective terms we have what is often little more than an objective 1:1 comparison of the same metric.

Lack of diversity is a different problem, though. Whether you view that as worse than the ability to make an ineffective PC like you could in 3e is a personal opinion.

Personally I view the reduction in class, feat, etc. diversity to be worse.

 

[tetrasodium]

Lack of diversity is a different problem, though. Whether you view that as worse than the ability to make an ineffective PC like you could in 3e is a personal opinion.

Personally I view the reduction in class, feat, etc. diversity to be worse.

I don't just view it as worse due to personal preference. I accurately describe it as worse because the resulting problems with some PCs being far more effective than others to an unfun degree are largely the same but magnified to have a larger impact with fewer ways for the GM to massage things a bit.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't just view it as worse due to personal preference. I accurately describe it as worse because the resulting problems with some PCs being far more effective than others to an unfun degree are largely the same but magnified to have a larger impact with fewer ways for the GM to massage things a bit.

I don't view 5e as having any way for one PC to be so much better than another that it's unfun to play. So what if you hit on a 2 and I hit on a 5. So what if you do 5 more DPR than me against massive bags of hit points. So what if you have +12 at a skill and I only have +8 when the vast majority of DCs are 15.

On a personal level that difference can be unfun, but that lack of fun doesn't extend itself into being a game problem.

 

[Undrave]

I don't view 5e as having any way for one PC to be so much better than another that it's unfun to play. So what if you hit on a 2 and I hit on a 5. So what if you do 5 more DPR than me against massive bags of hit points. So what if you have +12 at a skill and I only have +8 when the vast majority of DCs are 15.

On a personal level that difference can be unfun, but that lack of fun doesn't extend itself into being a game problem.

I agree, in general 5e is balanced enough for the majority of players and you have to go out of your way to really break things.

I don't think Battlerager and Banneret are terrible because they're that numerically inferior, I think they're just boring. The Banneret in particular is mostly about extra ways to use resources you already have so you’re not doing ‘more’ you’re just doing ‘different’ things. It’s not super exciting.