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

[tetrasodium]

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.

That's not even a plausible claim. I'm pleasantly surprised that the comment I was remembering was yours

Spoiler: this one

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.

or the even compare themore optimal than anything+shield fighter desperately trying to convince anyone to give them a chance at using their protection fighting style the great sword+GWM+GWF

Those were pretty low end on the CharOp scale, broken & OP builds are so over the top in 5e that there is practically a cottage industry of youtubers who make videos about them

 

[Maxperson]

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, ther

You aren't understanding me I think. Of course you can select something like DPR for two classes and objectively figure out which one does more. My point is that whether DPR matters or not is subjective. That means that ultimately your numbers stem from subjectivity. Is a higher DPR good or irrelevant. The answer is yes.

You can look at which PC is better socially? Is the one who has the higher numbers actually better, though? Maybe. Maybe an ability makes the one with the lower numbers ultimately better, because the result will be significantly better, even if it happens less of the time.

You can compare all kinds of things, but nothing you choose to compare matters for determining if one class is objectively better or worse than another. All of your objective numbers stem from subjective matter, so even if you conclude that one class is better than another at something, another person might disagree since numbers aren't everything, or just not care because other aspects of the game matter more making the "worse" class better.

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).

I didn't bring in the Battlerager, because it would have just been redundant. My point was made with the Purple Dragon Knight. How abilities are views is subjective as is whether choosing that subclass is a good or bad decision. It doesn't matter if you think it was a bad decision, because it was in fact a good decision since my viewpoint is the only one that matters for my PC.

And what I wrote about those abilities is true. I think they're good to great.

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.

Sure. I mean I can tell you that you're 500 years old. You are technically correct(and that's the best kind of correct) that you can tell whatever you want. The point is that if you determine an option to be worse and I determine it to be better, you simply can't be correct since I'm the one whose opinion(and it's purely subjective opinion at that point) matters.

You may have objective data you are relying on to make your decision, but whether the result is good or bad is a subjective decision based on that data. And it could be relying on a mechanic or aspect of the game that just doesn't matter to me. The decision is only worse for you unless I happen to agree with it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's fair. I've seen people for whom playing a 1e or 2e fighter was fun and exciting year in and year out. I've seen people who are bored by anything less than a full spellcaster with options up the yin yang.

I certainly can't argue against opinion like that, because only you know what is or is nut enjoyable for you. Personally, I'd have a lot of fun with the Purple Dragon Knight. I'd be bored out of my mind with the Battlerager since combat is only about 15-20% of what I enjoy about the game. Roleplay, social and exploration are far more important to me and the boost to social for the Purple Dragon Knight would mean that I would have good mechanical support outside of combat for social and roleplaying, and a lot of exploration doesn't involve rolls.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not even a plausible claim. I'm pleasantly surprised that the comment I was remembering was yours

Spoiler: this one

or the even compare themore optimal than anything+shield fighter desperately trying to convince anyone to give them a chance at using their protection fighting style the great sword+GWM+GWF

Those were pretty low end on the CharOp scale, broken & OP builds are so over the top in 5e that there is practically a cottage industry of youtubers who make videos about them

How is a quote from me saying that personal opinions about choices that others view as "suboptimal" being the only ones that matter, a refutation? I just said the same thing. It doesn't matter if you can show you do bigger numbers. You can't make my choice into a bad one just because you focus on the numbers. Numbers aren't my focus.

The only opinion that matters is the one making the choice. If he views it as a good decision, then it was. If he is having fun with it, then it doesn't matter if you would view it as unfun.

 

[Undrave]

That's fair. I've seen people for whom playing a 1e or 2e fighter was fun and exciting year in and year out. I've seen people who are bored by anything less than a full spellcaster with options up the yin yang.

I certainly can't argue against opinion like that, because only you know what is or is nut enjoyable for you. Personally, I'd have a lot of fun with the Purple Dragon Knight. I'd be bored out of my mind with the Battlerager since combat is only about 15-20% of what I enjoy about the game. Roleplay, social and exploration are far more important to me and the boost to social for the Purple Dragon Knight would mean that I would have good mechanical support outside of combat for social and roleplaying, and a lot of exploration doesn't involve rolls.

Considering how unpopular they are I'm probably not the only one who finds those two subclass boring.

I guess the Purple Dragon Knight has good hooks for role-play, and Royal Envoy is a nice out of combat feature but waiting to 7th level for it feels a bit ridiculous (at least it anticipates you already having Persuasion and gives you some options, though I would have also added History in there).

Rallying Cry sounds good in principle but is awkward due to the timing of when you would need Second Wind compared to your allies needed a bit of healing and 3 HP at level 3 is pretty mid. And again, the subclass doesn't give you anything else for level 3 compared to other subclass.

Inspiring Surge is their best feature but could end up useless without a weapon using ally so it's a little annoying because of that. Though in reality it probably rarely happens.

Bulwark is way too conditional for a level 15 feature. Especially when compared to the Auras a Paladin gets at level 7...

 

[W'rkncacnter]

You aren't understanding me I think. Of course you can select something like DPR for two classes and objectively figure out which one does more. My point is that whether DPR matters or not is subjective. That means that ultimately your numbers stem from subjectivity.

that doesn't follow. the numbers are still the numbers - whether DPR matters or not doesn't change that. and if i'm looking at DPR, clearly for whatever purpose i'm evaluating it for, it matters.

this is what i mean by your distinction not being helpful - you're just saying "your criteria are subjective, so your whole assessment isn't useful", but the criteria being picked clearly matter if they're the criteria being picked!

You can look at which PC is better socially? Is the one who has the higher numbers actually better, though? Maybe. Maybe an ability makes the one with the lower numbers ultimately better, because the result will be significantly better, even if it happens less of the time.

...okay? all this really does is attack your assessment of the banneret, so i have no idea why you're bringing it up.

You can compare all kinds of things, but nothing you choose to compare matters for determining if one class is objectively better or worse than another.

...what? it absolutely CAN. what are you on about?

so even if you conclude that one class is better than another at something, another person might disagree since numbers aren't everything,

who's saying they are? do you think only quantitative properties can be objectively evaluated? i mean, they're definitely easier to objectively evaluate.

or just not care because other aspects of the game matter more making the "worse" class better.

that would be changing the criteria of the evaluation. you could still make an objective evaluation taking those other aspects into account.

but more importantly...yeah, you can do what you want. that doesn't make every possible decision equally viable.

I didn't bring in the Battlerager, because it would have just been redundant. My point was made with the Purple Dragon Knight. How abilities are views is subjective as is whether choosing that subclass is a good or bad decision. It doesn't matter if you think it was a bad decision, because it was in fact a good decision since my viewpoint is the only one that matters for my PC.

a decision does not become a good one simply because you decide that it is for yourself. people make bad or just suboptimal decisions all the time. and you're allowed to do that - but to then go and say it was a "good" decision just because you decided so is ridiculous.

And what I wrote about those abilities is true. I think they're good to great.

i don't care about the banneret.

Sure. I mean I can tell you that you're 500 years old.

not only is this not advice, there's clearly been no attempt at actual evaluation here. as an attempt at reductio ad absurdem, it's embarrassing.

you do have the right to tell me that, though, so hey, i'll enjoy being a vampire or whatever creature i've become to last that long in your head.

You are technically correct(and that's the best kind of correct) that you can tell whatever you want.

The point is that if you determine an option to be worse and I determine it to be better, you simply can't be correct since I'm the one whose opinion(and it's purely subjective opinion at that point) matters.

i do not find this to be a constructive or useful viewpoint in the slightest.

You may have objective data you are relying on to make your decision, but whether the result is good or bad is a subjective decision based on that data.

i mean, to a point, it can be. but when, to take an example for a conversation i got into on another thread, you want every non-fighter class to just be the fighter but with more...i don't think calling that bad is really subjective at that point.

And it could be relying on a mechanic or aspect of the game that just doesn't matter to me.

i mean, that's your problem at that point.

The decision is only worse for you unless I happen to agree with it.

i...have no idea what you mean by this.

 

[tetrasodium]

How is a quote from me saying that personal opinions about choices that others view as "suboptimal" being the only ones that matter, a refutation? I just said the same thing. It doesn't matter if you can show you do bigger numbers. You can't make my choice into a bad one just because you focus on the numbers. Numbers aren't my focus.

The only opinion that matters is the one making the choice. If he views it as a good decision, then it was. If he is having fun with it, then it doesn't matter if you would view it as unfun.

The part where you demonstrate optimal is the single objective datapoint of damage. "The fighter who wants to use a short sword (d6) or mace(d6) with his shield, instead of the optimal longsword(d8) and board or two-handed sword(2d6) and no shield fighters." That shows you had no problem objectively rating them on damage alone previously. Listen to how treantmonk describes the way his optimized goliath fighter doing about 60 points of damage with nothing but at will stuff made both him & "Dean" feel the unoptimized goliath fighter when he did like 10 points of damage along with feeling about his own PC.
[spoiler="timestamped video start]
[/spoiler]
Getting rid of so many subjective elements makes the objective comparison impossible to ignore by mentally clutching something subjective

 

[Maxperson]

that doesn't follow. the numbers are still the numbers - whether DPR matters or not doesn't change that. and if i'm looking at DPR, clearly for whatever purpose i'm evaluating it for, it matters.

this is what i mean by your distinction not being helpful - you're just saying "your criteria are subjective, so your whole assessment isn't useful", but the criteria being picked clearly matter if they're the criteria being picked!

...okay? all this really does is attack your assessment of the banneret, so i have no idea why you're bringing it up.

...what? it absolutely CAN. what are you on about?

who's saying they are? do you think only quantitative properties can be objectively evaluated? i mean, they're definitely easier to objectively evaluate.

that would be changing the criteria of the evaluation. you could still make an objective evaluation taking those other aspects into account.

but more importantly...yeah, you can do what you want. that doesn't make every possible decision equally viable.

a decision does not become a good one simply because you decide that it is for yourself. people make bad or just suboptimal decisions all the time. and you're allowed to do that - but to then go and say it was a "good" decision just because you decided so is ridiculous.

i don't care about the banneret.

not only is this not advice, there's clearly been no attempt at actual evaluation here. as an attempt at reductio ad absurdem, it's embarrassing.

you do have the right to tell me that, though, so hey, i'll enjoy being a vampire or whatever creature i've become to last that long in your head.


i do not find this to be a constructive or useful viewpoint in the slightest.

i mean, to a point, it can be. but when, to take an example for a conversation i got into on another thread, you want every non-fighter class to just be the fighter but with more...i don't think calling that bad is really subjective at that point.

i mean, that's your problem at that point.

i...have no idea what you mean by this.

It all boils down to this. I want to play a fighter. Not any other class. Fighters are one of my top 3 classes that I enjoy playing. I also have as part of my character concept, knighthood. Prove to me objectively that I've made a bad choice by picking Fighter/Purple Dragon Knight.

 

[Maxperson]

The part where you demonstrate optimal is the single objective datapoint of damage. "The fighter who wants to use a short sword (d6) or mace(d6) with his shield, instead of the optimal longsword(d8) and board or two-handed sword(2d6) and no shield fighters." That shows you had no problem objectively rating them on damage alone previously. Listen to how treantmonk describes the way his optimized goliath fighter doing about 60 points of damage with nothing but at will stuff made both him & "Dean" feel the unoptimized goliath fighter when he did like 10 points of damage along with feeling about his own PC.
[spoiler="timestamped video start]
[/spoiler]
Getting rid of so many subjective elements makes the objective comparison impossible to ignore by mentally clutching something subjective

Sure. I can rate them objectively on damage. It just doesn't matter in the slightest what does a trivial amount of damage more. I'll never notice the effect of it in combat. That objective rating only matters subjectively. If you like more damage, it matters. If you don't, it doesn't.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It all boils down to this. I want to play a fighter. Not any other class. Fighters are one of my top 3 classes that I enjoy playing. I also have as part of my character concept, knighthood. Prove to me objectively that I've made a bad choice by picking Fighter/Purple Dragon Knight.

because that's a cavalier.

but seriously, ignoring that you're already pigeonholing your options down to suboptimal ones by single classing fighter, you have a bunch of better options just in the fighter. cavaliers, again, are much closer to archetypical knights with how they work with a mount (knights were cavalry units), though cavaliers have their problems what with mounts not always being practical. the samurai has a similar persuasion boost to the banneret, but lets you really lean into the fighter's main advantage (attacking). and the battle master has options for (temp) healing, protecting your allies, giving them additional attacks, and gaining bonuses to various skill checks (including persuasion), without having them take your base class resources like the banneret does (and sure, the skill checks do take subclass resources where the banneret's persuasion boost doesn't...but let's be honest, you're probably not your party's main face as a fighter regardless of subclass).

in comparison, the banneret basically boils down to "when you use your main class resources, you can give your allies a discount version of the same effects". and that's not terrible, but it means if you want to get good use of your subclass, you need to time what would otherwise be pure self-buffs with whenever it'd also best benefit your party, which makes your base class features significantly more situational then they otherwise would be. no other fighter subclass does that. the only part of the banneret that doesn't make you worry about that is the persuasion boost, which...i mean, okay, cool, i can be an off-face, but i could also do that as a samurai or battle master, and if i do that then i don't need to worry about saving my base class resources for when i can buff my class.

so in short, you can get a lot of similar effects from other subclasses, those subclasses can represent the concept of knighthood at least as well if not better, and those subclasses don't force you to completely change how you use your base class abilities. so, hey, pick banneret if you want, but you can definitely do better.

and i didn't even get into echo or eldritch knights...