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

[TwoSix]

Why exactly can't you do that? Who says all possible classes need to be equally effective and/or useful in all campaigns?

Agreed. As long as it's well communicated, I see no problem with some classes having moderate or even extreme differences in situational capability.

The challenge, of course, is giving a character whose schtick is "all non-combat abilities" at least some push-button abilities that aren't dependent on GM fiat. The extreme diplomancer or puzzle-solver whose class abilities boil down to "better chances on skill checks" isn't a good class design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed. As long as it's well communicated, I see no problem with some classes having moderate or even extreme differences in situational capability.

The challenge, of course, is giving a character whose schtick is "all non-combat abilities" at least some push-button abilities that aren't dependent on GM fiat. The extreme diplomancer or puzzle-solver whose class abilities boil down to "better chances on skill checks" isn't a good class design.

The trick to that, as I see it, is to have/find/create some good subsystems for areas of the game outside of combat, and have such classes interact with them in a mechanical way. Use the rules for that stuff, and leave the DM free to resolve issues, handle the opposition, and build the world.

 

[James Gasik]

Why exactly can't you do that? Who says all possible classes need to be equally effective and/or useful in all campaigns?

Why on Earth would you want it any other way? Why tell a player, here are three cars. One is a gas guzzler that will be impractical for anything you would ever want it to do, one is fuel efficient but has no cargo space, and the third is super fast and reliable. Pick one!

Please don't attack the analogy, it's not the point. The point is that all options should be equally viable. If one proves not to be, then why does it exist? Why is it up to the end user to figure out if something is viable? Why leave it up to chance if someone has a good or a bad experience playing the game? Why foster a need for system mastery and experience to tell them that class X is no good unless your game features Y and Z?

Just give people something that works out of the box.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why on Earth would you want it any other way? Why tell a player, here are three cars. One is a gas guzzler that will be impractical for anything you would ever want it to do, one is fuel efficient but has no cargo space, and the third is super fast and reliable. Pick one!

Please don't attack the analogy, it's not the point. The point is that all options should be equally viable. If one proves not to be, then why does it exist? Why is it up to the end user to figure out if something is viable? Why leave it up to chance if someone has a good or a bad experience playing the game? Why foster a need for system mastery and experience to tell them that class X is no good unless your game features Y and Z?

Just give people something that works out of the box.

They are all equally viable. That gas guzzler oozes testosterone and makes the driver feel extra awesome, plus it has more cargo space than the driver is likely to ever need. That sports car will stomp most things at the track and be good at passing or hitting high speeds when the driver thinks cops won't notice. The economic high mpg hatchback has good enough cargo for occasional needs good enough pickup and has multiple ways of being affordable (sticker price mpg etc).

All of them are equal, just not at the same time at the same things

 

[Cadence]

They are all equally viable. That gas guzzler oozes testosterone and makes the driver feel extra awesome, plus it has more cargo space than the driver is likely to ever need. That sports car will stomp most things at the track and be good at passing or hitting high speeds when the driver thinks cops won't notice. The economic high mog hatchback has good enough cargo for occasional needs good enough pickup and has multiple ways of being affordable (sticker price mpg etc).

All of them are equal, just not at the same time at the same things

It felt like the point was that one of them wasn't as good as any of the others overall - it was uglier, slower, smaller, and less economical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why on Earth would you want it any other way? Why tell a player, here are three cars. One is a gas guzzler that will be impractical for anything you would ever want it to do, one is fuel efficient but has no cargo space, and the third is super fast and reliable. Pick one!

Please don't attack the analogy, it's not the point. The point is that all options should be equally viable. If one proves not to be, then why does it exist? Why is it up to the end user to figure out if something is viable? Why leave it up to chance if someone has a good or a bad experience playing the game? Why foster a need for system mastery and experience to tell them that class X is no good unless your game features Y and Z?

Just give people something that works out of the box.

Because as you said, people play different ways, and emphasize different aspects of the game. In a game with a strong economic or political focus, why not have a class good at those things and less so at others? Why must every class be equally good at fighting monsters?

And if you're worried about players not getting it (a valid concern), make sure the text of the game explains this stuff then, and/or make sure the DM knows they need to do that. This is not and cannot be an unsolvable problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It felt like the point was that one of them wasn't as good as any of the others overall - it was uglier, slower, smaller, and less economical.

Then don't make a class that isn't good at anything? Seems simple enough.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why on Earth would you want it any other way? Why tell a player, here are three cars. One is a gas guzzler that will be impractical for anything you would ever want it to do, one is fuel efficient but has no cargo space, and the third is super fast and reliable. Pick one!

Please don't attack the analogy, it's not the point. The point is that all options should be equally viable. If one proves not to be, then why does it exist? Why is it up to the end user to figure out if something is viable? Why leave it up to chance if someone has a good or a bad experience playing the game? Why foster a need for system mastery and experience to tell them that class X is no good unless your game features Y and Z?

Just give people something that works out of the box.

because we're not saying there should be a gas guzzler that should never be viable, but between a choice of a pickup truck, a sports car and a compact hybrid, they all have their uses but it does ask you use a minimum of critical thinking and realise if you try to bring the pickup to a drag race or the hybrid to transport large heavy gear you'll fall behind the people who brought an apropriate vehicle.

 

[TwoSix]

Why on Earth would you want it any other way? Why tell a player, here are three cars. One is a gas guzzler that will be impractical for anything you would ever want it to do, one is fuel efficient but has no cargo space, and the third is super fast and reliable. Pick one!

Please don't attack the analogy, it's not the point. The point is that all options should be equally viable. If one proves not to be, then why does it exist? Why is it up to the end user to figure out if something is viable? Why leave it up to chance if someone has a good or a bad experience playing the game? Why foster a need for system mastery and experience to tell them that class X is no good unless your game features Y and Z?

Just give people something that works out of the box.

But we weren't really discussing viability, we were discussing your "4 points per class, putting 3 in combat, 1 in exploration, 0 in interaction" analogy.

You said you wouldn't design a game with classes that are 3-1-0, so I'm assuming you would always do some sort of 2-1-1 or 1-2-1 arrangement.

The pushback here is "Why NOT 3-1-0? Or 4-0-0 or 0-1-3?" Why not have a class that's situationally powerful with the trade-off of sometimes being not useful?

Personally, I don't think "Everyone gets to contribute all the time in roughly equivalent ways" is as valuable as is frequently claimed, especially in larger groups (5+ players). Sometimes it's nice for players to be able to have a big impact, and then float around of the fringes of play for a bit. I know quite a few players who prefer that playstyle.

 

[Undrave]

But we weren't really discussing viability, we were discussing your "4 points per class, putting 3 in combat, 1 in exploration, 0 in interaction" analogy.

You said you wouldn't design a game with classes that are 3-1-0, so I'm assuming you would always do some sort of 2-1-1 or 1-2-1 arrangement.

The pushback here is "Why NOT 3-1-0? Or 4-0-0 or 0-1-3?" Why not have a class that's situationally powerful with the trade-off of sometimes being not useful?

Personally, I don't think "Everyone gets to contribute all the time in roughly equivalent ways" is as valuable as is frequently claimed, especially in larger groups (5+ players). Sometimes it's nice for players to be able to have a big impact, and then float around of the fringes of play for a bit. I know quite a few players who prefer that playstyle.

I think the 2-1-1 arrangement is probably the best balance here. It gives classes an area of specialty, without making them useless in others.

There should be a basic level of competency for all class, and they should shine in their element. When the Fighter fight you should say "Wow, that guy can fight!" and when a Rogue sneaks you should say "Wow, that guy can sneak!" but you should never say "Wow, that guy is USELESS!". The thing to not underestimate is how much combat there is in a classic D&D game so the base level of that element is probably more important to get right than other activities.