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

[Maxperson]

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...

There is nothing suboptimal about the fighter and my goals. Were combat important to me, then and only then would you be correct.

As for the Cavalier, it doesn't work since everything it gets is combat related and I don't care about combat. Knights had other skills which the Cavalier doesn't have, but the Purple Dragon Knight at least has some of. The Samurai and Battlemaster are not knights, though the Samurai does have abilities that help outside of combat. I want a knight, not a Samurai.

Also, if people are playing a game that has any sense of realism at all, there is no party face. A king would be insulted if every time he asked the Barbarian something, the Bard answered, and NPCs don't just talk to the one person you want them to. My knight will talk to people and try to persuade them of things, including important people. I'm not going to allow someone else to do all my talking for me.

Names mean something. A Samurai or Battlemaster will never be a knight subclass, because they are not knight subclasses. They are a Samurai and a Battlemaster. A Cavalier could be a knight, but I'm not interested in only combat, so none of those can match my concept. I'm also glad you didn't get into Echo or Eldritch knights as they also don't match my concept and are in fact worse at it than the Samurai. I don't want magic involved.

You still haven't proven or even attempted to prove my choice to be objectively bad by the way. Simply listing out things that might possibly maybe fit is not any sort of proof.

 

[Mecheon]

You still haven't proven or even attempted to prove my choice to be objectively bad by the way. Simply listing out things that might possibly maybe fit is not any sort of proof.

I wouldn't say its objectively bad (Frankly the only class that hits that is the Berserker Barbarian because exhaustion is just that punishing), but it does basically drag your Fighter into being incredibly dependant on needing high Charisma for some things, which isn't going to synergise with any other part of your kit

Mind, its still well ahead of Berserker or even Four Elements

 

[W'rkncacnter]

There is nothing suboptimal about the fighter and my goals. Were combat important to me, then and only then would you be correct.

ignoring the suboptimal comment because we've been here all day about it, you didn't specify a non-combat priority as a criteria. if you wanted it to be one, you should have specified as such, and i would have accounted for it. but not only that, you went ahead and picked a subclass that has exactly 1 non-combat feature to make your character that you don't want to be combat focused?

and also, knights fought. that's like...the entire reason they existed. they were fighting nobility. a warrior class. how are you going to make a knight without caring about combat at all?

As for the Cavalier, it doesn't work since everything it gets is combat related and I don't care about combat.

but again, you're making a knight fighter. that's most of what you do.

Knights had other skills which the Cavalier doesn't have, but the Purple Dragon Knight at least has some of.

the banneret has good persuasion and possibly proficiency in one bonus skill that any fighter can start with (aside from performance, which...doesn't feel particularly knightly to me if i'm being honest). that's it.

The Samurai and Battlemaster are not knights

just because they don't literally have "knight" in the name doesn't mean you can't play them as knights (and vice versa). i mean, do you think the only possible way to play a samurai is to play a samurai fighter? kensei monk players would like a word with you...

though the Samurai does have abilities that help outside of combat.

so does the battlemaster. namely student of war, know your enemy, commanding presence, and tactical assessment.

I want a knight, not a Samurai.

ignoring for a moment that samurai were effectively the japanese equivalent of knights (yes i know they're not the same don't blow up on me about it)...you can play the subclass like a knight. nothing is stopping you but yourself.

and okay, maybe you're not comfortable with that because you think "samurai" carries an overly heavy cultural connotation. i can get that...but there's still the battle master. i would think that's a pretty apt way to describe a knight, too.

Also, if people are playing a game that has any sense of realism at all, there is no party face.

well that's a bit snobbish.

A king would be insulted if every time he asked the Barbarian something, the Bard answered, and NPCs don't just talk to the one person you want them to.

i would be insulted if every time someone asked me a question i had to roll persuasion, even if it were a totally innocent question. but moreover...singular people speak for groups all the time. that's like, one of the major parts of being a leader, is speaking on behalf of your group (though, of course, in dnd, we don't necessarily conflate party facing with leadership, which is why "party face" even exists as a term).

so sure, the king might ask the barbarian something personally and get upset if the bard interjects, but if the king is addressing the group and the bard answers, he'll likely just assume the bard is their leader.

My knight will talk to people and try to persuade them of things, including important people. I'm not going to allow someone else to do all my talking for me.

...then don't go cavalier...?

Names mean something.

sure, but they're not straight jackets. if they were, then bannerets could only ever be company leaders or knights of specifically the cormyrian army, depending on what name you go with.

A Samurai or Battlemaster will never be a knight subclass, because they are not knight subclasses.

tautology.

They are a Samurai and a Battlemaster.

which you can reasonably play as knights.

I'm also glad you didn't get into Echo or Eldritch knights as they also don't match my concept and are in fact worse at it than the Samurai. I don't want magic involved.

yeah, i figured you didn't.

You still haven't proven or even attempted to prove my choice to be objectively bad by the way. Simply listing out things that might possibly maybe fit is not any sort of proof.

uh...yes i did. that you (seemingly) didn't read it isn't my problem.

 

[Maxperson]

uh...yes i did. that you (seemingly) didn't read it isn't my problem.

Your declarations are nothing more than that. Declarations. You provided no objective proof that I made a bad choice. Your opinions and declarations are not objective truths.

Can you prove objectively, providing and proving your claims to be facts, that my choice is a bad one?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Finding out that no design can possibly be objectively bad is a load off my mind. To think I've been working on a system for years when I could just write 'hits stuff' on an index card and be immune to criticism.

Alright folks, line up and start giving me money. I've got 'hit's stuff', 'casts stuff', 'stuff' and what might be a marinara stain.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Damage might not be the most important metric but it’s easy to make a direct comparison on how much damage a class does and then also be able to compare just how many abilities that class can get for the rest of the gameplay and what it ‘cost’ them in damage potential, and how some classes will be able to get alot more utility/social capabilities while barely needing to sacrifice damage

 

[Maxperson]

Finding out that no design can possibly be objectively bad is a load off my mind. To think I've been working on a system for years when I could just write 'hits stuff' on an index card and be immune to criticism.

Alright folks, line up and start giving me money. I've got 'hit's stuff', 'casts stuff', 'stuff' and what might be a marinara stain.

No claim has said the design can't be objective. Only that good or bad which are subjective terms can't objectively be determined objectively for classes.

Let's take combat. Someone who claims a class is objectively bad because it doesn't do combat as well as another will be wrong in a game with little combat. Or when talking to someone who doesn't care about combat.

As soon as you bring in "good," "bad," "better," or "worse" with regard to entire classes you've left objectivity and stepped into personal subjective opinion. The best you can say is that objectively this class does more damage than that one, or this class moves faster than that one.

If someone makes the claim that one class is better or worse than another, he needs to back that claim up with facts that are proven objectively, not claims that some things are better than others. I've asked for the claim that the fighter/Purple Dragon Knight is an objectively bad choice and gotten evasions and false claims of proof, because objective proof cannot be given that subjective opinions are objective.

 

[Maxperson]

Damage might not be the most important metric but it’s easy to make a direct comparison on how much damage a class does and then also be able to compare just how many abilities that class can get for the rest of the gameplay and what it ‘cost’ them in damage potential, and how some classes will be able to get alot more utility/social capabilities while barely needing to sacrifice damage

Sure, but damage isn't all that a class is. Nor is it all that balance is. And whether a class is better or worse than another is further thrown out of whack because games vary in how much each pillar is represented. It's impossible to prove that one class is objectively(always) better than another.

Something else being overlook by the folks claiming one class is better or this choice is optimal and that one is suboptimal is that folks have different objectives. If my objective is to play a Fighter/Purple Dragon Knight, literally another choice I make other than Fighter/Purple Dragon Knight will be sub optimal in achieving my goal and therefore be the bad choice for me.

Goals vary. Classes and choices can't be termed objectively(always) good or bad since folks don't get to tell others what their goals are.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No claim has said the design can't be objective. Only that good or bad which are subjective terms can't objectively be determined objectively for classes.

The constant churn of semantic argumentation on this board is instantly tiring.

'Objectively' might be hyperbolic, but it's certainly no worse than a multi-page diversion to yell about it we seem to run into every five threads.

And please do not make this about whether or not it's literally every five threads where semantic and tone arguments wreck threads.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sure, but damage isn't all that a class is. Nor is it all that balance is. And whether a class is better or worse than another is further thrown out of whack because games vary in how much each pillar is represented. It's impossible to prove that one class is objectively(always) better than another.

Something else being overlook by the folks claiming one class is better or this choice is optimal and that one is suboptimal is that folks have different objectives. If my objective is to play a Fighter/Purple Dragon Knight, literally another choice I make other than Fighter/Purple Dragon Knight will be sub optimal in achieving my goal and therefore be the bad choice for me.

Goals vary. Classes and choices can't be termed objectively(always) good or bad since folks don't get to tell others what their goals are.

different objectives of different players don't matter to this, the gameplay pillars are measured by their own standards and we can compare those to themselves and the resulting exchange rates, how much combat potential does a rogue start with and how much potential do they give up to invest in social pillar? ok that much i see, and how much does the fighter have to give up in combat for social potential? oh, they got way less in the social pillar for what they gave up didn't they..., and the wizard? oh the wizard can just swap out any of their spells as they like and spec into whatever they like every day you say! hmmm i don't know if that's properly balanced.