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

Which classes have the least identity?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 23 14.6%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 17 10.8%
  • Bard

    Votes: 12 7.6%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 14 8.9%
  • Druid

    Votes: 4 2.5%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 59 37.6%
  • Monk

    Votes: 17 10.8%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 5 3.2%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 39 24.8%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 15 9.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 19 12.1%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 36 22.9%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 69 43.9%

I voted sorcerer and fighter. Both are ill-defined in terms of niche, with one being "person who fights with magic" and the other being, "person who fights with not-magic". At least wizards have the spellbook thing, which at this point in D&D's development is pretty unique.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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. :)
No I get what you're saying. But if I'm a game designer, I can't say "ok, every class has 4 points. If a class has 3 points in combat, it gets one point in exploration and 0 points in interaction" because I don't know how useful any of those categories is going to be.

OTOH, I can guess that combat is probably going to be a major aspect of most D&D games, and therefore by making each class roughly the same in combat ability, I know they'll always be useful at the thing they're most likely going to be doing.

The flipside is, if the Fighter is the best at combat, and that does turn out to be a huge chunk of the play experience, then I have to put a warning label on the Rogue to tell people who like that archetype to check with their DM's before playing.

Ideally, what I'd do is give each class a different advantage in combat. The Rogue might be best at avoiding danger. The Fighter is best at sustained damage. The Barbarian is the best at burst damage. The Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock is best at status effects and AoE. The Paladin and Cleric are best at dealing with supernatural threats like undead or fiends, and have the best recovery abilities.

Which is kind of how things work now, but there's a lot of overlap. Like I don't really know why Rage gives you resistance to damage. It seems kind of the opposite of what I'd expect a Barbarian to be great at, and they aren't the class I'd make the "mitigation specialist".
 


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?
Ehhh... yes and no. Like, its a d10 roll added on but takes a Second Wind use, so they're better than a Rogue with Expertise when it comes to a single roll, but they do have limited uses unlike a passive expertise. So, they're great for pinch hitting, but I wouldn't put them down for being a main scout or main face that needs to make multiple rolls.
 

Too angy to die.
I'm not opposed, but they already have the best hit die. So I'd have rather seen rage as a more offensive ability, as it was in previous editions, because flying into a rage and becoming a killing machine feels more evocative to me than "you get a small damage buff and can technically double your hit points".

OTOH, I'm not saying we should go back to dying when your rage wears off like 2e or 3e berserkers, lol!
 

Overall, on the fighter, I see them as being the jack-of-all-trades with weapon and armor. They should be able to pick up anything to fight with and be good with it.

The ranger, paladin and barbarian are more specialists in their own field. The ranger is an ambusher with sword and bow and skilled in the natural world - able to track, hunt and hide in it. They give up trodding around in heavy armor and going toe-to-toe with an enemy over the long term - they are hit-and-run. The barbarian is also skilled in the natural world, but more towards overcoming adversity in survival and overcoming obstacles (jumping, climbing, etc.), and in combat they about dealing the punishing first strike and being able to ignore the wounds dealt to them while doing so.

The paladin, clad in the heaviest defensive armor is the slow-walking tank whose attacks are empowered with might of their god. They aren't targeting the mooks, they're after the villainous leaders in charge, shaking the enemy's morale when their evil champion goes down. The paladin should be relentless, able to wade into the thick of battle to seek than enemy out and fell it, or be the staunch defender who draws all the attacks to them and away from their allies and non-combatants.

That tends to mean that fighter isn't going to be the one dealing the most damage with a blow. But he'll be consistent and have a dozen strategies and methods to deal with battlefield situations - being on the offense one moment, defending the next and overall riding the tide of battle to get done what needs to be done. To me, personally this means that the battlemaster should be the default operation of the fighter, allowing them control the ebb and flow with combat. Like the monk and the sorcerer, give them a pool of points to select their stratagems/maneuvers to augment their base abilities and control the flow of the fight. Create some higher level maneuvers that come into play at 5th, 10th and higher that gives them more options and punch appropriate to that tier.

The champion subclass, designed for those who want a quick and easy experience should simply be a battlemaster whose maneuvers has been prechosen for them, so the player doesn't have to hem and haw over options. They'll still have the point pool, but using them will be along the line of tracking Action Surge, Second Wind, and Indomitable or always-on abilities like Improved Critical, but not be the millstone around the class's neck that keeps them from getting anything interesting because it would be "too much like tracking spells".
 

I voted sorcerer and fighter. Both are ill-defined in terms of niche, with one being "person who fights with magic" and the other being, "person who fights with not-magic". At least wizards have the spellbook thing, which at this point in D&D's development is pretty unique.
At least with sorcerer the subclasses provide identity and flavor - not always well, but they all try.

Fighter's biggest issue is that the PHB subclasses also fail to provide much identity or flavor, so you end up with white rice of a class. Which can make your race and/or background stand out more, or you can really enjoy the French Vanilla of the battlemaster, but the base fighter is just kinda meh.
 

Overall, on the fighter, I see them as being the jack-of-all-trades with weapon and armor. They should be able to pick up anything to fight with and be good with it.

...

The champion subclass, designed for those who want a quick and easy experience should simply be a battlemaster whose maneuvers has been prechosen for them, so the player doesn't have to hem and haw over options. They'll still have the point pool, but using them will be along the line of tracking Action Surge, Second Wind, and Indomitable or always-on abilities like Improved Critical, but not be the millstone around the class's neck that keeps them from getting anything interesting because it would be "too much like tracking spells".
If you go that route, you make it easier to build other subclasses as well - the samurai gets a certain number of "Archetype Maneuvers" similar to a cleric's domain spells: you get them just because, and they may or may not be on the main list. You can then pick some others to add in to make your samurai unique.
 

Overall, on the fighter, I see them as being the jack-of-all-trades with weapon and armor. They should be able to pick up anything to fight with and be good with it.

The ranger, paladin and barbarian are more specialists in their own field.
i'd say the fighter should be a little closer to 'master of all' when it comes to weapons and armour, or closer to being that than they are being a jack of all trades, but that might be quibbling over terminology,

the ranger is the precise hunter with blade and bow, the paladin the reliable tank with sword and board and the barbarian gets through on brute might of greatsword and greataxe, they do that as part of being specialists in their fields, but the fighter is a specialist in the field of combat specifically and the should match all of them for their combat.
 

No I get what you're saying. But if I'm a game designer, I can't say "ok, every class has 4 points. If a class has 3 points in combat, it gets one point in exploration and 0 points in interaction" because I don't know how useful any of those categories is going to be.
Why exactly can't you do that? Who says all possible classes need to be equally effective and/or useful in all campaigns?
 

Remove ads

Top