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

[ECMO3]

Mistyped.

Still: citation needed.

The 5E game and the 5E fighter is awesome for a number of reasons. One of those is a common baseline across weapons, weapons do largely the same thing for every class unless you bring magic or subclass abilities into the game.

You may call that "terrible" but I find it awesome when I play fighters. IF you do find it terrible I would suggest you play a different class.

 

[James Gasik]

It introduced bloodlines, not sorcerer bloodlines. They are separate things.

Just want to chime in on this discussion about the Sorcerer (not specifically replying to your post, Maxperson) - 3e absolutely did expand on Sorcerous bloodlines. Well, bloodline, singular. For example:

 

[James Gasik]

Thats not entirely true Rangers were only D8 HP instead of D10 and both Ranger and Paladin had more restrictions and markedly slower XP progression than Fighter. With the removal of restrictions and penalties the other classes have come to match the Fighter plus get their magical and skill bonuses, yet for some inexplicable reason some people continue to oppose making Fighters "unparalleled" with weapons and combat, but why?

Why is it okay to give Rangers and Paladins more but not Fighters? Why not let Fighters have Weapon Expertise, Weapon Masteries, Defiant HP surges, Superior Maneuvers, Fearlessness, Inspirational Rallying Cry and Death Defying Stunts?

Fighters can't even use Whirlwind Attack. It's something they gave to a Ranger subclass.

 

[Maxperson]

Just want to chime in on this discussion about the Sorcerer (not specifically replying to your post, Maxperson) - 3e absolutely did expand on Sorcerous bloodlines. Well, bloodline, singular. For example:View attachment 365584

I had forgotten about those feats.

 

[James Gasik]

The 5e Fighter is more fun than the 3 Fighter because they can't take Feats like Large and in Charge, Twin Thunders, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and Whirlwind Attack?

Not seeing it.

 

[Undrave]

Moreover you would play it because that is what you wanted to play, and if you wanted to play a more powerful class you would play a more powerful class.

All the classes should be equally powerful, and if not, it should have a disclaimer about it, otherwise it's a stupid design made by silly designers.

Like I said they do get a few unique things and their subclasses or very unique and the point of playing any class is that you want to play that class.

subclasses don't count.

We are talking about mechanics aren't we? If you want unique concepts just read the PHB

This is a thread about identity.

And likely a Wizard who did not put ASIs and feats toward that would not match a fighter, but if he did he absolutely should.

He absolutely should not, he's a WIZARD! Even with equal stats and proficiency, the Fighter SHOULD absolutely be better.

 

[James Gasik]

He absolutely should not, he's a WIZARD! Even with equal stats and proficiency, the Fighter SHOULD absolutely be better.

And yet, this is where the game is. Heck, a Wizard can be technically superior to a Fighter in ranged combat because they don't suffer range penalties, and can grab a feat to double said spell ranges. They also don't need ammunition (not in the same way a Fighter needs arrows or bolts) and the fact they can inflict elemental damage or impose secondary effects on targets far more easily needs to be considered as well.

The Fighter's primary advantage is staying power over the course of the adventuring day (though the Wizard can have more staying power in a particular encounter), the ability to make more attacks over the course of the adventuring day (but again, in a particular encounter the Wizard can match or exceed them), and needing to spend less resources for good AC (but it's not particularly hard to get a good AC as a Wizard).

The two classes are built on a different axis, and always have been. In the long run, over the course of many encounters, the Fighter shines, while in a specific encounter, the Wizard has the potential to be amazing. Or not, it really depends.

The problem is, the Fighter is not an island- when the rest of the party needs to stop, so do they, even if they could conceivably continue to battle. It's an issue keeps the Fighter from claiming their full potential. Otherwise, their identity could clearly be that of the Implacable Warrior, who simply does not stop or give up until they are dead.

 

[ECMO3]

The 5e Fighter is more fun than the 3 Fighter because they can't take Feats like Large and in Charge, Twin Thunders, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and Whirlwind Attack?

Yes. The whole game is more fun for it.

More fun for the player playing the Fighter, more fun for the player playing the Bard, more fun for the player playing the Cleric and more fun for the DM.

There is a reason 5E in general and the 5E Fighter in particular are so popular.

 

[ECMO3]

All the classes should be equally powerful, and if not, it should have a disclaimer about it, otherwise it's a stupid design made by silly designers.

There is no reason all classes should be equally powerful and there is a disclaimer of sorts as the PHB states that Wizards are Supreme or something similar.

And it is hardly stupid design when it is immensely popular and fun to play.

subclasses don't count.

Don't count for what.

This is a thread about identity.

Then why are you worried about the fighter being weaker?

He absolutely should not, he's a WIZARD! Even with equal stats and proficiency, the Fighter SHOULD absolutely be better.

No he shouldn't.

 

[ECMO3]

And yet, this is where the game is. Heck, a Wizard can be technically superior to a Fighter in ranged combat because they don't suffer range penalties, and can grab a feat to double said spell ranges. They also don't need ammunition (not in the same way a Fighter needs arrows or bolts) and the fact they can inflict elemental damage or impose secondary effects on targets far more easily needs to be considered as well.

Well to be fair a fighter can do all that too if he wants to, either through a subclass or a feat.