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

[Cadence]

I'm going to be brave and say game designers shouldn't strike out to intentionally make one class in particular inferior to the others.

Even bards? I mean, Even bards!

 

[ECMO3]

I'm going to be brave and say game designers shouldn't strike out to intentionally make one class in particular inferior to the others.

No they should strike out to make the game fun and popular and the 5E rules ad the fighter class have that in spades.

 

[Mecheon]

No they should strike out to make the game fun and popular and the 5E rules ad the fighter class have that in spades.

Every class having their little niche that they alone excel at, so you can do your Cool Thing, helps make the game fun

Therefore, non-fighter classes being as good as Fighters are with weapons and getting other things on top of it, is against making it fun, because fighter players are seeing other characters do everything they can do, and then more on top of it

 

[ECMO3]

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?

Because every martial class should be equal with weapons, or at least nearly equal and the non-martial classes should have similar mechanics with fewer attacks.

That is what is most fun.

Why is it okay to give Rangers and Paladins more but not Fighters?

Why isn't it? I think the argument to give fighters more is pretty weak though when they are already the most powerful non-caster class at most levels.

And to be clear I am not that vehemently opposed to giving fighters more, I am opposed to giving them more things with weapons. If you want to give them spells I would be ok with that. I don't think they need it, but if you want more just to have more that is a better option IMO.

Why not let Fighters have Weapon Expertise, Weapon Masteries, Defiant HP surges, Superior Maneuvers, Fearlessness, Inspirational Rallying Cry and Death Defying Stunts?

Well to start with I think that would be less immersive, but if you are going to make those mechanics why not make them available to all classes?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Even bards? I mean, Even bards!

They've been the A tier for three editions running. I don't think the designers can drop the ball hard enough at this point to screw them over like what's being proposed to spite the Fighter. I mean look at what the DD1 playtest did for bards vs what it did to the warlock.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No they should strike out to make the game fun and popular and the 5E rules ad the fighter class have that in spades.

So you think 3e is specifically fun and popular because the fighter is terrible?

Why?

Not even why do you think that, just why is making the fighter worse the thing to credit instead of the worshipful boosting of the class that you favor? That seems especially spiteful.

 

[Maxperson]

Fluff & lore is trivial to move from one class to another. Wotc could declare the the fighter's core identity was using the inmate power of their bolted on bloodline to swing weapons with more power than your average soldier.

If they did that they would end up with a nonsensical class, because the class mechanics would not match the fluff and lore. They would also need to change the mechanics and now you no longer have a Fighter.

They could not bolt on the mechanics of casting the wizard spell list &slot progression to fighter barbarian or rogue without significant redesign of both though. That is the reason why mechanics matter so much to what the op wrote.

Correct. Like the above, you can't just move the fluff and lore without changing the other. Mechanics are subordinate to fluff and lore, because the fluff and lore come first and the mechanics are created to support the fluff and lore.

 

[ECMO3]

Therefore, non-fighter classes being as good as Fighters are with weapons and getting other things on top of it,is against making it fun, because fighter players are seeing other characters do everything they can do, and then more on top of it

Non-caster classes are not as good as fighters, they are worse than fighters at most levels.

 

[ECMO3]

So you think 3e is specifically fun and popular because the fighter is terrible?

No 3E is not very fun. 5E is.

One of the many reasons 3E was not very fun is all the stupid crap that fighters could do with weapons because of their ridiculous number of feats.

Not even why do you think that, just why is making the fighter worse the thing to credit instead of the worshipful boosting of the class that you favor? That seems especially spiteful.

I don't know what you mean by "the class I favor". I play most classes (all except Barbarian and Druid). I play Rangers and Rogues more than any other classes and Fighters more than any full caster class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No 3E is not very fun. 5E is.

Mistyped.

Still: citation needed.

I don't know what you mean by "the class I favor".

You've said exactly as such many, many times in other threads. We're not going to do this.