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

[tetrasodium]

The story of the necromancer is generally one of depression and grief. Trying to bring someone back who's passed on, only to create abominations in their place

What better way to represent them than finally being able to achieve that goal of a true resurrection, built upon the many, many, many bodies they've had to sacrifice?

With all the posts talking about this since it came up I figured that it was worth mentioning a book about a necromancer that flips most of that on its head. In Necromancer's end you have a pretty standard kid wanted to be a wizard & found someone to teach them backstory to a wizard... except they have a "split focus"(I think that was the term) and as a result they suck at being a wizard. Finally an exasperated wizard tells their pupil of "someone" who might be able to make something out of them & that it's probably a sign they should give up if not... "Someone" was a lich & that split focus is a good thing to have as a necromancer. Most of that was explored in memories thinking back & the book pretty much starts at the beginning steps of a dungeon crawl after the lich tells him to go off to adventure where he meets some actual adventurers & pretends he's a conjuration wizard.

What really makes it interesting is that everyone in the world is absolutely certain that necromancy is so evil that any necromancer should be killed on sight (including people he just saved) yet he's pretty much the embodiment of somewhere between lawful neutral & lawful good in action while everyone around him is openly pretty deep into the various acceptable stereotypical murderhobo adventurer tropes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is objectively true that the game is more popular since 3E.

And there's zero proof that this is because the fighter is poorly designed.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I think that power in combat should be mitigated by out of combat ability. Rogues for instance shouldn't be as good as fighters in combat. The disclaimer should let people know that. Something to the effect of...

"This class shines outside of combat with its skills, so it will not be as effective in combat. Keep this in mind when selecting your class."

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The whole game is less fun for it.

Fun is subjective.

 

[Maxperson]

No he shouldn't.

The fighter's main and only thing is his supposed combat supremacy via his weapons and armor use. They have given up social and exploration pillars to be that. WotC should give the fighter that ability that they supposedly have.

The other classes should never, ever be able to match the fighter, since they are not supreme in combat and have other avenues open to them. I'm okay with other classes who give ASIs and feats towards being good in combat being in the same ball park, but the fighter should clearly be better.

Think of it in baseball terms. Baseball is combat. If the wizard wants to use his ASIs and feats to be become a major league baseball player, that's fine. The fighter is Hideo Nomo who is clearly better than the other major league ball players.

 

[Mephista]

The fighter's main and only thing is his supposed combat supremacy via his weapons and armor use. They have given up social and exploration pillars to be that. WotC should give the fighter that ability that they supposedly have.

Nitpick - 1dnd Fighteer has the power to add to their skill rolls now. So that's no longer 100% true.

 

[Maxperson]

Nitpick - 1dnd Fighteer has the power to add to their skill rolls now. So that's no longer 100% true.

We will see. I think that will be true, but when 5e came out classes and rules were significantly changed from the last playtest we had. I'm not counting any playtest towards this discussion since we can't be sure what is going to be what.

Edit: Did the change bring him up to par outside of combat or is the fighter better, but still behind?

 

[James Gasik]

I think that power in combat should be mitigated by out of combat ability. Rogues for instance shouldn't be as good as fighters in combat. The disclaimer should let people know that. Something to the effect of...

"This class shines outside of combat with its skills, so it will not be as effective in combat. Keep this in mind when selecting your class."

I think the problem with this approach is how useful out of combat utility is can vary wildly from game to game. Most D&D games have fights in them, however, so making sure everyone can contribute equally in that arena is a safe bet.

I played Fantasy Craft for awhile, which has classes balanced around being useful in a particular arena, and boy oh boy, did it suck to play the "Skills Expert" classes that had no fighting ability (like the Courtier). One could argue that you shouldn't play a Courtier in a game about fighting monsters, but then if you did have to interact with NPC's, you didn't have the edges the Courtier brings with it.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the problem with this approach is how useful out of combat utility is can vary wildly from game to game. Most D&D games have fights in them, however, so making sure everyone can contribute equally in that arena is a safe bet.

I played Fantasy Craft for awhile, which has classes balanced around being useful in a particular arena, and boy oh boy, did it suck to play the "Skills Expert" classes that had no fighting ability (like the Courtier). One could argue that you shouldn't play a Courtier in a game about fighting monsters, but then if you did have to interact with NPC's, you didn't have the edges the Courtier brings with it.

First, how useful combat ability is can also vary wildly from game to game. Ask the DM what kind of game it is before making a character.

Second, I'm not suggesting they be bad at combat. Just not as good. See also my baseball analogy in the other post.

 

[James Gasik]

We will see. I think that will be true, but when 5e came out classes and rules were significantly changed from the last playtest we had. I'm not counting any playtest towards this discussion since we can't be sure what is going to be what.

Edit: Did the change bring him up to par outside of combat or is the fighter better, but still behind?

From what I remember, it's more like "hey, on occasion, the Fighter can make a really high skill roll without needing expertise or bard dice or guidance" but it still feels like a clutch ability that doesn't replace having a generally high bonus, or the ability to Just Do It (tm) that magic often has- but hope springs eternal that maybe the Just Do It (tm) spells will be rebalanced!