What're the niche of the classes?

[Man_Over_Game]

Say every class had a core goal that it pushes to the extreme as you level. Barbarians take more hits and revel in simplicity. Druids get better at non-combat utility and combat zoning. Bards get better at manipulation and non-violent means of controlling the field. Rogues get better at skills and sneaking.

What would you say is (or should be) the unique niche of every class in the game?

For example, compared to the Bard or Wizard, what is the unique benefit of having a Sorcerer?

[Darc_Vader]

There’s some overlap here because to be honest I can’t really come up with 13 unique niches, never mind ones that nicely fit a single class each.

Artificer: General utility and team support
Barbarian: Absorbing damage
Bard: Social manipulation and enemy disabling
Cleric: Healing and buffing allies
Druid: Infiltration and area denial
Fighter: Consistent frontline dps
Monk: Mobility and skirmishing
Paladin: Frontline enhancement
Ranger: Tracking and In-combat self-buffs
Rogue: Skills and single target damage
Sorcerer: Manipulating spells (Imo there should be more metamagics, and the ones that exist should be more powerful/less restricted)
Warlock: Blasting and out-of-combat self-buffs
Wizard: Out of combat utility and battlefield manipulation

[w15p]

Almost entirely in jest, but I really care about the flavor more than the mechanics (though I am, as admitted elsewhere, enough of a munchkin to be annoyed when the mechanics are not in my favor)


Artificer: General utility and team support
I want to tinker and blow things up


Barbarian: Absorbing damage
I come from the wilds. What was that you said about my mother?


Bard: Social manipulation and enemy disabling
I shall sing of your noble reign and your subsequent demise (and then instrument it), oh great lords and ladies


Cleric: Healing and buffing allies
The path is dark but my faith will bring the light (or, conversely... the darkness)


Druid: Infiltration and area denial
Nature needs a protector and need look no further. Oh look! isn't the slobbering draggermouth adorable!


Fighter: Consistent frontline dps
I have more depth than my battered chainmail and longsword suggest


Monk: Mobility and skirmishing
I will meditate on your wisdom, after I defeat you in seven breaths


Paladin: Frontline enhancement
The path is dark but YOU WILL SEE THE LIGHT (or, conversely... the DARKNESS)


Ranger: Tracking and In-combat self-buffs
I keep the hordes at bay - I am the thin green line that allows civilized folk to not care about the wilds


Rogue: Skills and single target damage
I am the night


Sorcerer: Manipulating spells (Imo there should be more metamagics, and the ones that exist should be more powerful/less restricted)
I never set the barn on fire - I don't remember that. The milk curdling and the chickens laying rocks? Why would you think that had anything to do with me? Ok, I had to leave town in a bit of a hurry, but they'll pay.


Warlock: Blasting and out-of-combat self-buffs
I was offered power. I took it. A price, you say? ... AAAAAHH


Wizard: Out of combat utility and battlefield manipulation
The arcane mysteries of the ages are mine to control.

[KorvinStarmast]

Niches with a narrative emphasis:

Artificer: Belongs in a steam punk game, or the Late Renaissance bits of D&D. Has no niche. steals from Wizard the making of magical items. Quite frankly, belongs on the island of misfit toys unless you play in Eberron.

Barbarian: Absorbing damage

Fighting, running, jumping, climbing, swimming, hunting, finding, sensing, getting a bit of live -off-the-land and understanding the wild. Out of his element in an urban campaign. Fine undergrond, underdark, anywhere but a city.

Bard: Social manipulation and enemy disabling

Not as I see it. Persuasion, deception, inspiration, support, innovation. Occasinally deadly when crossed. Can get the crowd to lynch you!

Cleric: Healing and buffing allies

Control, healing, buffing, debuffing, and removing conditions as well as inflicting them. Divine power conduit. can remove the death condition.

Druid: Infiltration and area denial

Hardly. As with the barbarian, is good anywhere but in a city or in the planes where aberrations abound. Is linked/tied to the material plane of whatever world they are from. When someone says "Don't mess with Mother Nature" its the Druid who lays down the lumber when somebody does.

Fighter: Consistent frontline dps

Fight, protect, scout, lead, kill, run, jump, swim climb. Knows siege engines too. can use any weapon, any time.

Monk: Mobility and skirmishing

Move, hit, listen, hit again, climb, stun, and take no damage from falling. Sneak, listen again.

Paladin: Frontline enhancement

Best gish ever.

Ranger: Tracking and In-combat self-buffs

Move, hide, hit, find, track, listen scout, tap into a little bit of mother nature, but not as strong as a druid.

Rogue: Skills and single target damage

Move quiet, listen, climb, find and find out, unlock, and sometimes slay.

Sorcerer: make magic do something nobody else can.

Warlock: Blasting and out-of-combat self-buffs


Find out, discover, persuade, deceive, study, lead, persuade, curse, and sometimes, condemn.

Wizard: Bend reality and make physics go and cry in a corner.

[Dienekes]

Niches with a narrative emphasis:

This might be a major difference between us. But in my opinion narrative without mechanics to back it up doesn't really count. Take what you have for the barbarian


Barbarian: Absorbing damage

Fighting, running, jumping, climbing, swimming, hunting, finding, sensing, getting a bit of live -off-the-land and understanding the wild. Out of his element in an urban campaign. Fine undergrond, underdark, anywhere but a city.

Absorbing damage, that he does. Very well.
Fighting? Everyone fights.
Running, jumping, climbing, swimming? Mostly agreed. They have incentive to max out Str which directly effects the Athletics check which is directly related. But they don't get a Climb speed or Swim speed. But their base Move Speed is either +10 or even +25 if they take a specific ability from Totem Warrior.
Hunting? What makes them good at this? They have no incentive to focus Wisdom and Survival is just one of their potential skills.
Finding and Sensing? Limited to one ability from the Totem Warrior again. The abilities one would think would be good for this: Danger Sense and Feral Instinct, don't actually effect your ability to find and sense things directly. The mechanics really only say you have fast reactions. You can't really find or sense what's about to happen with them. But you're able to react well when something does.
Living off the land? How is a barb good at this? He gains no inherent ability to do this more than anyone not named Ranger.
Understanding the wild? Only Totem Warrior, again. At least for this one, it's a thing that all Totem Warriors always get. So it's just a fraction of the Barbarian can do it. Not a fraction of a fraction.
Out of his element in urban campaign? Why? How is he worse mechanically than a Fighter would be? Honestly Feral Instinct seems like it would be incredibly beneficial in a campaign where you're facing a lot of backstabbing rogue-ish elements and assassins as one would find in an urban campaign.

[ezekielraiden]

Since I don't actually believe every class in 5e has such a thing (and would argue many specifically lack one), this is all a list of what I would personally seek, rather than what actually is present. I will include a thematic niche and a mechanical niche for each.

Bard: Magical trickster and ultimate generalist. Always a good spellcaster, but potentially good at several other things or excellent at one other specific thing.
Barbarian: Reckless warrior and damage sponge. Someone who leaps heedless into the fray--and has a good chance of coming out the other side, even without support.
Cleric: Proselytizer and support casters. Attuned with divine philosophy, as opposed to merely duty, and who keeps parties going after plans fall apart.
Druid: Mystic and shapechanger. They are mortal-kind's power when fully immersed in Nature, and the ones who appropriate Nature's form and wrath against foes.
Fighter: Guardian and technical combatant. Not a dumb meatshield, the Fighter is the active barrier between friends and harm, and finds(/makes) openings to do so.
Monk: Enlightened soul and punch-man. They're martial-arts films made manifest, both as meditative, philosophical warriors, and as running-up-walls "I know kung fu" guys.
Paladin: Servant and smiter. They don't minister, they inspire, a subtle but vital difference. And they strike down enemies of the faithful when needed.
Ranger: Outdoorsman and hunter. Whether they hunt men, monsters, or food, they're the best at tracking and finding, and represent domestication: Nature made to serve Mortals.
Rogue: Trickster and pinpoint-striker. They use guile rather than force, skill rather than strength. And they specialize in putting the hurt on a victim's weaknesses.
Sorcerer: Prodigy and powerhouse. They're the magic barbarians, bombastic, explosive, dangerous, but compelling, the risk-takers you can't help admiring (from afar, if possible).
Warlock: Thralls and seekers. Patrons give power, authority, and commands; Pacts are vows sworn. But finding these dark things implies drive and inquisitiveness.
Wizard: Academics and technical casters. Batman is an overused example...but it fits. They know a ton, how to learn more, and must exploit esoteric tools to solve life's puzzles.

And for a few that aren't present in 5e, but IMO should be...

Avenger: Inquisitor and internal-police. They're not hunting dark forces, they're keeping the clergy on the straight and narrow--and often use subterfuge to do it.
Shaman: Psychopomp and spirit-caller. The Voices of the World and the Ancestors speaking to the present day, and also the outlet for spiritual vengeance.
Warlord: Mentor and force-multiplier. They induce planning/discipline in a group, and help handle incoming injuries and empower outgoing ones (though more the latter).

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always liked the idea of having various priorities on spontaneous versatility or prepared power.

For example, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids should have to think long-term about what problems they need to solve, and have powerful tools when they get it right.

However, the Sorcerer has to think on his toes and adapt his few spell options with expensive resources as-needed.

And I believe other semi-magical, item-oriented classes should have a middling effect. For example, I think Artificers and Rangers should prepare in the middle of the day, or even in the middle of a fight, to deal with expected threats using buffs and other benefits that have a short expiration date. Artificers focusing on the party support or meta-magical effects (such as detection, cancellation, barriers, etc), while Rangers focus on aggression using poisons and whatnot.

This doesn't work quite right in 5e's ecosystem, since casters generally get too many resources, and most niche spells are not worthwhile to pick, causing a bad pick for prepared spells to not really be that impactful on their level of success. On the other hand, classes like the Sorcerer lack many universal spells or means of manipulating them in ways that distinctly matter, causing them to not particularly excel when they're caught with their pants down any more than a "preparation" based caster with the same problem.


So I think that someone who plays a divine class should FEEL like a divine character when playing them. What do divine characters have in common? Zeal!

I believe divine classes, like the Paladin and Cleric, should have a high emphasis on negative feedback loops. This means that they get more powerful the more you're losing. There are a few minor ways this shows off, with things like the Crown Paladin healing allies that are missing 50% of their HP, but most of these kinds of effects are considered bad.

This also gives off the sense of Divine Intervention, as these kinds of heroes shouldn't be good at picking on weaker encounters, but instead pulling through when all hope is lost. Boring when it's easy, game changers when you need them.

Warlocks, I think, should use the opposite philosophy (Positive Feedback Loop). Wins well, as long as they can keep winning. This also ties into how most badguy plots feel, as everything goes their way until one small crack in their dam plans causes everything to fall apart.

This could just be reflected as bonuses to the Cleric/Paladin that activate when you < 50% HP, or if the affected ally < 50% HP, for example doubled healing on allies with less HP, or doubled Divine Smite damage. The Warlock version could be minor benefits on killing enemies/dealing damage, bonuses while Concentrating but penalties to any Concentration Checks made on Warlock spells, or just low durability as a powerhouse.


A big component of melee classes in 5e is risk/reward throttling. You dive in first, and can get mulched. If you pull too hard back, your Wizard either goes down or his Concentration spell does. Do you dive heavily into their team to distract the key players, guard your squishier allies who need it, or just brawl whoever gets into range to just start dealing the most amount of damage possible?

I think Barbarians should lean into the Risk factor, gaining a lot of power when throwing themselves into risky situations. They already do this, it just doesn't feel like it's enough to really stand out as a major defining point. Uses Negative Feedback Loops, to make them feel stronger the more they're surrounded by danger.

Paladins should have a similar philosophy to Barbarians, with the difference that they amplify allies to do the same rather than focusing entirely on themselves. Uses Negative Feedback Loops for allies to reflect the power of faith and never giving up.

Rangers should probably benefit from playing safely and slowly, winning in situations where the enemy doesn't have to be killed in 2 turns. They're plotters, with skills and tools, so it makes a lot of sense that they would be the least reckless of the martial classes. So they'd use traps or information to guarantee your death. Uses Positive Feedback Loops, as their planning can pay off big if they're smart about it.

Rogues should be similar to Rangers, but have less of a requirement for timing. They don't effect mass areas of the battlefield with traps, but they are good at misdirection, either distracting a single enemy, or a group of enemies targeting them. When those misdirections pay off, or when you stall long enough for your allies to cripple your problems, the Rogue turns around to abuse those conditions with a Sneak Attack. Uses a combination of Negative and Positive Feedback loops, to always have a means of escaping, or to always be able to capitalize on your mistakes.

Ideally, Monks should follow the same ideals as the Ranger in this regard, but having more mobility and more emphasis on melee and a sense of "self". For example, channeling buffs onto themselves or using an Astral Projection to bypass the front lines and attack the magic users that can feel his punches. Uses a combination of Positive and Negative Feedback Loops, to teach and learn necessary lessons in every battle.

Fighters, I think, should accomplish or support any of these at the cost of resources. They can be risky like a Barbarian, or protect like a Paladin, or open or abuse weaknesses like a Ranger or Rogue. The Sorcerer of the Martial identity. Uses Positive Feedback Loops, to reflect the importance of momentum in combat and to reward them for correctly responding to a threat.



I particularly like Positive and Negative Feedback Loops as major mechanics, as they change priorities based on the current difficulty of the situation. Considering each encounter generally has a changing difficulty curve over its duration, this means that you're always recalculating for a better response in every turn. It means you're forced into thinking about the "right now" rather than just the default response that you programmed into your head before the session even started.

It's no longer "Always Divine Smite the biggest guy in the room", but instead becomes "Use Divine Smite when I think I need to quickly finish an enemy off, or save it when its damage doubles when I'm at 50% life or less". That second one has a much more involved thought process that doesn't always have the same result.

[Yakmala]

There's a lot of overlap between classes, but if we are talking about things certain classes do that cannot be done by any other class, or at least, not nearly as well, then here are some examples:

Paladin: Save Boosting Aura: No other class provides the Paladin's save boosting aura, an effect that is always on and cannot be disrupted except by incapacitating or killing the Paladin.

Monk: Stunning Strike: Very few creatures are immune to stun. And when you land a stun, it lasts until the end of the Monks next turn. That's a long time in a 5th edition combat!

Wizard: Unique Spells: Simply put, Wizards have access to more spells that are unique to their class only than any other class in the game. Some of these spells have very powerful effects.

Barbarian: Damage Absorption: Other classes can get a high AC or have multiple layers of defenses. But no other class can take damage like a Barbarian.

Rogue: Making Skill Rolls: You can make a skill monkey without being a Rogue, but why would you? Between four (or more) Expertise and Reliable Talent, the Rogues are the masters of skill checks.

Fighter: Nova Damage: Many classes can do damage. Fighters can effectively double their potential damage for a turn via action surge. At level 20, that's four extra attacks in a single round!

Warlock: Super Powers: Some invocations are kind of like super powers, in that they are "at will". Detecting magic, reading any language, changing your look, speaking with the dead, etc.

Sorcerer: Spell Boosting: Metamagic allows modifications and boosts to spells in a way that is unique to the sorcerer class.

Cleric: Strong start, stronger finish: Picking your sub-class at level 1 is powerful. Getting your God to directly intervene 100% of the time (at level 20) is even more powerful.

Bard: Flexibility: Being able to pick from every classes spell list can lead to powerful combinations.

[Democratus]

This might be a major difference between us. But in my opinion narrative without mechanics to back it up doesn't really count. Take what you have for the barbarian

Interesting. From my point of view narrative is mechanics.

It's a big world.

[Man_Over_Game]

But in my opinion narrative without mechanics to back it up doesn't really count.

From my point of view narrative is mechanics.

I'm confused. Isn't that saying that you guys have the same opinion? That in order for the Barbarian to be stronger, it has to have mechanics that make him so?

[Dienekes]

A big component of melee classes in 5e is risk/reward throttling. You dive in first, and can get mulched. If you pull too hard back, your Wizard either goes down or his Concentration spell does. Do you dive heavily into their team to distract the key players, guard your squishier allies who need it, or just brawl whoever gets into range to just start dealing the most amount of damage possible?

I think Barbarians should lean into the Risk factor, gaining a lot of power when throwing themselves into risky situations. They already do this, it just doesn't feel like it's enough to really stand out as a major defining point. Uses Negative Feedback Loops, to make them feel stronger the more they're surrounded by danger.

Paladins should have a similar philosophy to Barbarians, with the difference that they amplify allies to do the same rather than focusing entirely on themselves. Uses Negative Feedback Loops for allies to reflect the power of faith and never giving up.

Rangers should probably benefit from playing safely and slowly, winning in situations where the enemy doesn't have to be killed in 2 turns. They're plotters, with skills and tools, so it makes a lot of sense that they would be the least reckless of the martial classes. So they'd use traps or information to guarantee your death. Uses Positive Feedback Loops, as their planning can pay off big if they're smart about it.

Rogues should be similar to Rangers, but have less of a requirement for timing. They don't effect mass areas of the battlefield with traps, but they are good at misdirection, either distracting a single enemy, or a group of enemies targeting them. When those misdirections pay off, or when you stall long enough for your allies to cripple your problems, the Rogue turns around to abuse those conditions with a Sneak Attack. Uses a combination of Negative and Positive Feedback loops, to always have a means of escaping, or to always be able to capitalize on your mistakes.

Ideally, Monks should follow the same ideals as the Ranger in this regard, but having more mobility and more emphasis on melee and a sense of "self". For example, channeling buffs onto themselves or using an Astral Projection to bypass the front lines and attack the magic users that can feel his punches. Uses a combination of Positive and Negative Feedback Loops, to teach and learn necessary lessons in every battle.

Fighters, I think, should accomplish or support any of these at the cost of resources. They can be risky like a Barbarian, or protect like a Paladin, or open or abuse weaknesses like a Ranger or Rogue. The Sorcerer of the Martial identity. Uses Positive Feedback Loops, to reflect the importance of momentum in combat and to reward them for correctly responding to a threat.



I particularly like Positive and Negative Feedback Loops as major mechanics, as they change priorities based on the current difficulty of the situation. Considering each encounter generally has a changing difficulty curve over its duration, this means that you're always recalculating for a better response in every turn. It means you're forced into thinking about the "right now" rather than just the default response that you programmed into your head before the session even started.

It's no longer "Always Divine Smite the biggest guy in the room", but instead becomes "Use Divine Smite when I think I need to quickly finish an enemy off, or save it when its damage doubles when I'm at 50% life or less". That second one has a much more involved thought process that doesn't always have the same result.

I know it's kind of lame to pedal your own wares. But you might enjoy having a look at my Differentiating Martials (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?610037-Differentiating-Martials-(PEACH)). Especially for the Paladin. It's not exactly what you're talking about, and is honestly probably not really designed for 5e in general. But I really tried to hone in on the idea that a Paladin's powers come from following their tenets. And for the Devotion Paladin specifically they get their power by being self-sacrificing for the good of their allies, which is a pretty heavy risk for the reward of gaining superhuman smiting and magic.

You might be interested in it. Though I have a feeling it will be more useful for you to see an idea that you can spin off into your own (likely better) implementation).


Interesting. From my point of view narrative is mechanics.

It's a big world.


I'm confused. Isn't that saying that you guys have the same opinion? That in order for the Barbarian to be stronger, it has to have mechanics that make him so?

Yeah Democratus, I think we're saying the same thing. If there is no mechanical basis for a narrative claim it doesn't really exist.

Or I suppose if I want to be very nitpicky I suppose I would change your statement to mechanics is narrative.

[Snails]

I particularly like Positive and Negative Feedback Loops as major mechanics, as they change priorities based on the current difficulty of the situation. Considering each encounter generally has a changing difficulty curve over its duration, this means that you're always recalculating for a better response in every turn. It means you're forced into thinking about the "right now" rather than just the default response that you programmed into your head before the session even started.


I really like your ideas, but it does seem like the game needs to be (re)designed around those concepts.

In particular, negative feedback has to be carefully designed, because there will always be a bias towards simply killing/disabling a portion of your enemies quickly. The lesson of the 3e Monk class is that a large grab bag of interesting defensive abilities generally is inferior to a smaller number of less powerful offensive abilities that are easy to use together.

[Man_Over_Game]

I really like your ideas, but it does seem like the game needs to be (re)designed around those concepts.

In particular, negative feedback has to be carefully designed, because there will always be a bias towards simply killing/disabling a portion of your enemies quickly. The lesson of the 3e Monk class is that a large grab bag of interesting defensive abilities generally is inferior to a smaller number of less powerful offensive abilities that are easy to use together.

I agree. I think a good solution is to have most of your negative feedback loops focus on dealing more damage, and then having most of your positive feedback loops result in incapacitating enemies or providing some sort of defensive bonus when you deal damage.

If you let damage bonuses be universally beneficial, they'll end up just being boring choices for optimization, and making damage bonuses risky to utilize (such as only being active at <50% HP) makes them feel like you made epic choices in combat rather than just made a highly optimized and generic character sheet. Maybe keep a few super-defensive bonuses that apply when you're losing, just so that your only solution when you're losing isn't to just kill them faster, although that could easily be done with improving something like the Dodge Action with class bonuses.

If a Barbarian had x2 Rage Bonus and could attack as a Bonus Action each turn if he had less than 50% HP, it'd be a game changer that many could enjoy. If that Barbarian doesn't get to use it often, what's he going to complain about? That the game is too easy?

That's a pretty easy fix, and one that'd be pretty hard to screw up (as it's now much harder to hit that next benchmark of "too hard").

[Kyutaru]

Tank Spectrum
Absorption - Accuracy - Avoidance

Barbarian: Damage Reduction. Great at chopping things up, sure, but does so with no regard for personal safety because his anger grants him super strength and durability like a Saiyan. No min-max calculations needed for this one, no strategizing your gear loadout, just a big bag of health on a towering meatstick and one thought in mind -- murder death kill.

Fighter: Combat Specialization. As variable as any other class, he can be designed to be the hardest nut to crack or the sharpest tool in the shed. The downside is he has to stick with the one he chose till the heat death of the universe. Also he probably only he uses one type of weapon but he's REALLY good at it. Unlike his brutish thug of a partner he depends on manipulating RNG in his favor whether through enhanced AC bonuses or multiple stacking offense boosts.

Monk: Speedy Denial. The monk is your answer to everything physical and he has only one answer - "No." Want to shoot him? No. Want to strike him? No. Want to hit him with fireballs or mind control? No and no. It would be shorter to comprise a list of things you CAN do to this guy and he would probably just be in your face in 1 round stopping you from doing that too with a stunning strike.

Skill Spectrum
Person - Place - Possession

Bard: Mind Control. No he's not a psychic but he's damn close and an excellent singer. If the problem you're facing is a living sentient being then the bard is your lockpick for getting past it. If it can think, it can be duped, suggested, or manipulated somehow and who better than the guy who prides himself on his vocal chords? With a charisma that high he can definitely seduce the dragon while you make your escape.

Ranger: The Great Outdoors. If you're not in a dungeon and you're not in a city then you're probably somewhere between them traveling. Welcome to woods and swamps and mountains and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and rocks and trees and trees and rocks and water. Terrain plays such a huge part in tactics that there are entire war college courses dedicated to the subject. No one knows the terrain or its inhabitants better than the guy who became a Junior Woodchuck by age 7.

Rogue: Loot and Looting. When building an adventuring party people default to ensuring they can defeat any monster standing in their way. But there are so many other things that can stand in your way that don't move an inch. Enter the rogue. An expert in "acquisitions" that can bypass any security system known to man or myth even if he just has to wing it by dodging, ducking, diving, and dipping past a hallway of sharp swinging things.

Assist Spectrum
Utility - Utilidor - Utilitarian

Druid: Shapeshifter. Both literal and figurative, the druid is both priest and mage and warrior in one bundled package, magically shifting between roles as necessary. A true jack of all trades who can do it all while wrapping enemies in hostile plants. Can he disable traps? Ask his bear form as it plows through them. Oh and he heals too.

Paladin: Protection. When heavy armor isn't enough, he trades some of that godly spell support to ward everyone against nasty effects and magic. Just being near this guy is better than carrying two lucky charms and if you come down with the sickness he's got you covered. Oh and he heals too.

Cleric: Buffs. Sporting only the good stuff he's got everything you need to enhance a team into battle hardened tough guys with just a few prayers. Turns even his own fight incompetence into the very incarnation of Death, a god he probably worships daily, provided he has time to prepare. Allies love him for the extra help and there's nothing he carries that is intrinsically bad to have or won't see use. Oh and he heals too is a gross understatement.

Mage Spectrum
Quality - Quantity - Quincy

Sorcerer: Raw power. Naturally gifted with magic and strong in the Force. This Jedi Master can melt faces when it absolutely needs to be killed with fire. Brings out the big guns when only the biggest guns possible are what will work. His middle name is Overkill and he doesn't settle for half measures.

Wizard: Adaptability. The pride of any magic college he boasts a spell book thicker than a dictionary. Whatever you need magic for he probably has an obscure spell to handle it. Knows just about everything like the study nerd he's made to be and serves as a portable magic Wikipedia.

Warlock: Battlemage. A squib that probably couldn't cut it in magic school so he sold his soul to Cthulhu for power. Now he's up front with the fighter stabbing people with swords and spamming spell blasts as one of your top sustainable DPS or sitting back like a magical archer cursing excessively.

[MrStabby]

I think there are too many classes relative to the facets of the game to support one niche per class. I think instead it might be useful to consider classes as a fusion of two (or even more) niches (not that it all fits together, but the exceptions tend tobe the classes complained about as power outliers at either endof the spectrum). Furthermore I think that some of the niches can come from the subclass as well so might not appear on the main class.

So I could for example see the cleric as buffing allies and undoing enemy actions (raise dead, healing, restoration) but tempest adds blasting, knowledge cleric adds intelligence gathering and so on.

I also think classes are differentiated somewhat by the weaknesses they target - monks exploit weak con saves and rangers exploit weak Str saves but both for similar control purposes. I think one of the design errors in 5th edition is that there are some classes that can use any save as a weakness so step on the toes of other weaknesses. The other is that too many classes only exploit a low AC so feel a bit compressed into a niche.

Or at least this is the kind of framework I use when homebrewing.

[Crucius]

I've always liked the idea of having various priorities on spontaneous versatility or prepared power.

For example, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids should have to think long-term about what problems they need to solve, and have powerful tools when they get it right.

However, the Sorcerer has to think on his toes and adapt his few spell options with expensive resources as-needed.

And I believe other semi-magical, item-oriented classes should have a middling effect. For example, I think Artificers and Rangers should prepare in the middle of the day, or even in the middle of a fight, to deal with expected threats using buffs and other benefits that have a short expiration date. Artificers focusing on the party support or meta-magical effects (such as detection, cancellation, barriers, etc), while Rangers focus on aggression using poisons and whatnot.

This doesn't work quite right in 5e's ecosystem, since casters generally get too many resources, and most niche spells are not worthwhile to pick, causing a bad pick for prepared spells to not really be that impactful on their level of success. On the other hand, classes like the Sorcerer lack many universal spells or means of manipulating them in ways that distinctly matter, causing them to not particularly excel when they're caught with their pants down any more than a "preparation" based caster with the same problem.


So I think that someone who plays a divine class should FEEL like a divine character when playing them. What do divine characters have in common? Zeal!

I believe divine classes, like the Paladin and Cleric, should have a high emphasis on negative feedback loops. This means that they get more powerful the more you're losing. There are a few minor ways this shows off, with things like the Crown Paladin healing allies that are missing 50% of their HP, but most of these kinds of effects are considered bad.

This also gives off the sense of Divine Intervention, as these kinds of heroes shouldn't be good at picking on weaker encounters, but instead pulling through when all hope is lost. Boring when it's easy, game changers when you need them.

Warlocks, I think, should use the opposite philosophy (Positive Feedback Loop). Wins well, as long as they can keep winning. This also ties into how most badguy plots feel, as everything goes their way until one small crack in their dam plans causes everything to fall apart.

This could just be reflected as bonuses to the Cleric/Paladin that activate when you < 50% HP, or if the affected ally < 50% HP, for example doubled healing on allies with less HP, or doubled Divine Smite damage. The Warlock version could be minor benefits on killing enemies/dealing damage, bonuses while Concentrating but penalties to any Concentration Checks made on Warlock spells, or just low durability as a powerhouse.


A big component of melee classes in 5e is risk/reward throttling. You dive in first, and can get mulched. If you pull too hard back, your Wizard either goes down or his Concentration spell does. Do you dive heavily into their team to distract the key players, guard your squishier allies who need it, or just brawl whoever gets into range to just start dealing the most amount of damage possible?

I think Barbarians should lean into the Risk factor, gaining a lot of power when throwing themselves into risky situations. They already do this, it just doesn't feel like it's enough to really stand out as a major defining point. Uses Negative Feedback Loops, to make them feel stronger the more they're surrounded by danger.

Paladins should have a similar philosophy to Barbarians, with the difference that they amplify allies to do the same rather than focusing entirely on themselves. Uses Negative Feedback Loops for allies to reflect the power of faith and never giving up.

Rangers should probably benefit from playing safely and slowly, winning in situations where the enemy doesn't have to be killed in 2 turns. They're plotters, with skills and tools, so it makes a lot of sense that they would be the least reckless of the martial classes. So they'd use traps or information to guarantee your death. Uses Positive Feedback Loops, as their planning can pay off big if they're smart about it.

Rogues should be similar to Rangers, but have less of a requirement for timing. They don't effect mass areas of the battlefield with traps, but they are good at misdirection, either distracting a single enemy, or a group of enemies targeting them. When those misdirections pay off, or when you stall long enough for your allies to cripple your problems, the Rogue turns around to abuse those conditions with a Sneak Attack. Uses a combination of Negative and Positive Feedback loops, to always have a means of escaping, or to always be able to capitalize on your mistakes.

Ideally, Monks should follow the same ideals as the Ranger in this regard, but having more mobility and more emphasis on melee and a sense of "self". For example, channeling buffs onto themselves or using an Astral Projection to bypass the front lines and attack the magic users that can feel his punches. Uses a combination of Positive and Negative Feedback Loops, to teach and learn necessary lessons in every battle.

Fighters, I think, should accomplish or support any of these at the cost of resources. They can be risky like a Barbarian, or protect like a Paladin, or open or abuse weaknesses like a Ranger or Rogue. The Sorcerer of the Martial identity. Uses Positive Feedback Loops, to reflect the importance of momentum in combat and to reward them for correctly responding to a threat.



I particularly like Positive and Negative Feedback Loops as major mechanics, as they change priorities based on the current difficulty of the situation. Considering each encounter generally has a changing difficulty curve over its duration, this means that you're always recalculating for a better response in every turn. It means you're forced into thinking about the "right now" rather than just the default response that you programmed into your head before the session even started.

It's no longer "Always Divine Smite the biggest guy in the room", but instead becomes "Use Divine Smite when I think I need to quickly finish an enemy off, or save it when its damage doubles when I'm at 50% life or less". That second one has a much more involved thought process that doesn't always have the same result.

What are you working on MoG? :smallamused:

Just reading this fills me with a sort of "sadness for what could have been", if the classes had a design intent as focused as this.
Some of the people in this thread have got the right idea: I feel that the classes have been built around flavors, not mechanics or niches. Which is good for the RP part, but not so much for the G part.

So, tell me man, are you over the game yet?

Edit: Ennui? Is that the word I'm looking for when I say "sadness for what could have been"?

[Man_Over_Game]

What are you working on MoG? :smallamused:

Just reading this fills me with a sort of "sadness for what could have been", if the classes had a design intent as focused as this.
Some of the people in this thread have got the right idea: I feel that the classes have been built around flavors, not mechanics or niches. Which is good for the RP part, but not so much for the G part.

So, tell me man, are you over the game yet?

Edit: Ennui? Is that the word I'm looking for when I say "sadness for what could have been"?

I'm never over. Note no blue text - what, you think this is a game!?


Honestly was just spitballing, not working on anything right now. I just really enjoy learning logical systems and tinkering with them. I'd probably make some sweeping changes if I were do take on anything like that, like just making the Artificer concept just a part of the Rogue (heck, I even wrote them having similar ideals without really thinking about it).


Quiz that takes various parts of your playstyle ideals and produces the best build to do it, although some of the values on the subclass section could use updating
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?579402-I-ve-UPLOADED-a-personality-quiz-that-gives-you-your-best-build-Wanna-try

A DnD calculator I made, with a few random parts. Lets you fill in HP and damage estimates for your monsters after entering your party size and level, estimates the damage of a spell after considering the average number of enemies hit (using the estimation of the sqrt of the max number of creatures hit) along with the average length of a Concentration spell in combat (3 rounds), and a half-assed list of the average spell damage per spell level that was supposed to help players figure out what kind of bar they should set when creating spells (which basically failed as soon as I added Fireball stupid Fireball...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qFCdpyYPOjPrzYq3de5_CJVL4mbETFdtsbUtcN2LEok/edit?usp=sharing

A calculator I made to determine what the balance should be for Borderlands 3 when it comes to the various armor types, weapon damage types, expected spawn rates for the Armor/Shield/Flesh HP types, and how to modify those numbers to get the best balance possible. I'm particularly fond with this one, as I figured out they basically needed cut the amount of flesh HP in the game by half, and double the armor HP to compensate for the gap, which is exactly what they did in the first two DLCs they released.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByW9fK1lf9ulV1ZiWW5OSEJNZEJHcUlRd2Y3SDJUeDlURHY4/view?usp=sharing

This is, uh...this is my hobby. I spend more time doing this than actually playing DnD, TBH.

But to be frank, it's kinda unhealthy. While I find bliss in theorizing perfect solutions to almost everything you can think about, most people don't really want to talk about "what coulda beens", so it... mostly just comes off as complaining or presumptuous.

Running into a weird issue right now where it's easier for me to almost rewrite the entirety of 5e than it is DMing a campaign with some friends who don't really want to worry about the rules.

So it's reasonable to assume that most of those ideals on the classes aren't really things the majority of 5e players would find fun.


Edit: Ennui is close, but mostly revolves around boredom/melancholy. I think "Disappointed" just works better.

[Dienekes]

But to be frank, it's kinda unhealthy. While I find bliss in theorizing perfect solutions to almost everything you can think about, most people don't really want to talk about "what coulda beens", so it... mostly just comes off as complaining or presumptuous.

Running into a weird issue right now where it's easier for me to almost rewrite the entirety of 5e than it is DMing a campaign with some friends who don't really want to worry about the rules. So there's a strong chance that most of those ideals aren't something a lot of 5e players would find fun.

Mate, if you ever want a sounding board to throw up your "what could have beens" upon, you can PM me. Thinking about where 5e went wrong and how it does or doesn't fit with the mental model of what it should is most of what I do with 5e.

And I usually find your ideas at least interesting and well reasoned even if I disagree with them occasionally.

[Mieko]

That, and analyzing the system, playing with it, creating awesome builds and stuff can be rewarding entirely in it's own right and can be self-serving. I'm not doing it that much but from time to time I'm fantasizing about stuff that could have been, I just like to build characters for the sake of it and I like discovering and learning new things about the system. It doesn't need to serve any other purpose than your own entertainment, that's perfectly fine a hobby as any other.

Regarding the classes, they overlap at many points while I tend to think that each class also has something unique to it - and maybe that was the intent, creating domino pieces that are their own pieces but still overlap with the others. And then you as the DM can push them all over while cackling like a madman. Mind, some subclasses for example copy unique class stuff from the list down below, although not as a focus and in rather limited quantities.

Artificer - Unique: Magical Equipment
- Overlap: General Support and Utility

Barbarian - Unique: The classic meatshield tank
- Overlap: Damage

Bard - Unique: Support via tinkering with rolls and stuff - Inspiration, Cutting Words, ...
- Overlap: General Support and Utility, Skillmonkey

Cleric - Unique: Gish-in-a-can
- Overlap: General Support and Utility, Healing

Druid - Unique: Shapeshifting (a subsystem in itself that provides lots of utility aside of other stuff)
- Overlap: General Support and Utility, Healing, Scouting

Fighter - Unique: Brawler (as in, unites defense, offense and damage like no other), Blank Slate Customizable
- Overlap: Damage, some Battlefield Control mostly

Monk - Unique: Stuns (crazy offensive group support), Skirmisher (can take out the enemy backline and high priority targets)
- Overlap: Scouting, provides a bit of Avoidance Tanking

Paladin - Unique: like-no-other Nova, group saves/defenses improvement
- Overlap: Tanking, General Support and Utility, Healing

Ranger - Unique: The go to ranged DPS
- Overlap: General Support and Utility, Scouting

Rogue - Unique: Skillmonkey
- Overlap: Single target damage, Scouting

Sorcerer - Unique: Better Spells (= Quality)
- Overlap: Damage, General Support and Utility, minor Scouting

Warlock - Unique: Magical DPR, At-Will Spells
- Overlap: Damage, minor Scouting

Wizard - Unique: (Long-Term) Problem Solving, Spell Quantity
- Overlap: Damage, minor Scouting, General Support and Utility

[Crucius]

what, you think this is a game!?
I don't know, ya playin'!?


Honestly was just spitballing, not working on anything right now. I just really enjoy learning logical systems and tinkering with them. I'd probably make some sweeping changes if I were do take on anything like that, like just making the Artificer concept just a part of the Rogue (heck, I even wrote them having similar ideals without really thinking about it).


Quiz that takes various parts of your playstyle ideals and produces the best build to do it, although some of the values on the subclass section could use updating
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?579402-I-ve-UPLOADED-a-personality-quiz-that-gives-you-your-best-build-Wanna-try

A DnD calculator I made, with a few random parts. Lets you fill in HP and damage estimates for your monsters after entering your party size and level, estimates the damage of a spell after considering the average number of enemies hit (using the estimation of the sqrt of the max number of creatures hit) along with the average length of a Concentration spell in combat (3 rounds), and a half-assed list of the average spell damage per spell level that was supposed to help players figure out what kind of bar they should set when creating spells (which basically failed as soon as I added Fireball stupid Fireball...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qFCdpyYPOjPrzYq3de5_CJVL4mbETFdtsbUtcN2LEok/edit?usp=sharing

A calculator I made to determine what the balance should be for Borderlands 3 when it comes to the various armor types, weapon damage types, expected spawn rates for the Armor/Shield/Flesh HP types, and how to modify those numbers to get the best balance possible. I'm particularly fond with this one, as I figured out they basically needed cut the amount of flesh HP in the game by half, and double the armor HP to compensate for the gap, which is exactly what they did in the first two DLCs they released.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByW9fK1lf9ulV1ZiWW5OSEJNZEJHcUlRd2Y3SDJUeDlURHY4/view?usp=sharing

This is, uh...this is my hobby. I spend more time doing this than actually playing DnD, TBH.

But to be frank, it's kinda unhealthy. While I find bliss in theorizing perfect solutions to almost everything you can think about, most people don't really want to talk about "what coulda beens", so it... mostly just comes off as complaining or presumptuous.

Running into a weird issue right now where it's easier for me to almost rewrite the entirety of 5e than it is DMing a campaign with some friends who don't really want to worry about the rules.

So it's reasonable to assume that most of those ideals on the classes aren't really things the majority of 5e players would find fun.

I don't think it's unhealthy. I don't think it's presumptuous either. You're exercising your brain working on creative tasks. I can think of much worse hobbies to have.
Being part of any community is partaking in "b*tching and moaning" about the thing we are all into, it's part of the charm. It's fun to deconstruct and subsequently criticize this hobby. Hells, if anything, the whole TTRPG thing is MADE to be improved and altered due to its adaptable nature.

I've found this game occupying way more mental bandwidth than I'd like, but at the end of the day it let's me have pointless discussions about the most minute things and let's me keep in touch with friends who I wouldn't see otherwise.

That was a lot more sentimental than I initially set out to write, but a round of appreciation for this game is well deserved. For all my complaining, I often forget the good things it brings me.



Edit: Ennui is close, but mostly revolves around boredom/melancholy. I think "Disappointed" just works better.
Hahahaha, savage.
There was some melancholy in there though, a feeling of "*sigh* imagine how great it could have been". But yeah, disappointed works as well. At least it's less pretentious!

[Hytheter]

I particularly like Positive and Negative Feedback Loops as major mechanics, as they change priorities based on the current difficulty of the situation.

After reading your post: same. This gives me a lot to think about.

[Kemev]

What is the unique benefit of having a Sorcerer?

Jeez man, if WotC hasn't been able to figure it out in 20 years of published material, I dunno that we're gonna fix it over the weekend on a message board.

I feel like trying to put classes into specific niches was how we ended up with 4th ed. The designers goal was making the old roles of fighter, thief, cleric, wizard fit into an MMO scheme of tank, DPS, healer, mage. I'd say they actually succeeded at their goal pretty well... they just didn't consider whether it was a good goal or not.

I feel like when D&D Next was in the works, the new team very much wanted to avoid pigeonholing classes. Yeah, they definitely used a handful of classes as benchmarks, and conceptually they turned out ok...

Fighter: No one will hit people with a stick better than me.
Barbarian: No one will get hit with a stick better than me.
Wizard: No one will do ritual casting better than me.
Meteor Swarm: I am the highest damage spell, and all others will be keyed down from here.

...but for other classes they tried to drill down to their essential fantasy trope, and in the process accidentally jumped the established bounds...

Paladin: I'm in charge here. (Not those filthy fighter or barbarian guys.)
Druid: Jack-of-All-Trades... I could do anything, but I'll be great at something.
Bard: Jack-of-All-Trades (2.0) I could do anything... and probably will.

Most of the rest of the classes don't feel like they caught that genre archetype on the nose, and they're not a clear mechanical win either... it's like they've unraveled since their original conception. Is it relevant to have a healer when every class has baked in healing abilities? 'Cause that was the core identity of the cleric in many settings. Is it relevant to have a thief when a variety of classes have ways to circumvent skill encounters? 'Cause that was the core identity of the rogue (arguably the bard steps on the rogues toes a lot... maybe less expertise would have been good).

Then there's still a couple classes (Monk, Sorcerer) that are tough to define, because they weren't really a part of the same fiction genres that the rest of D&D was cribbed from. And 20 years later, the D&D team is still trying to figure them out.

Then you got a couple weird kids eating paste in the corner that 5e straight punted on...

Warlock: (sad emo noise) Who am I?
Artificer: (developer sticky note -- The marketing team keeps asking for more steampunk content. Don't they understand the Word of Gary? Guns are icky.)

...

I would guess that when the next D&D edition rolls (heh) around, the writers won't try to go back to the tightly defined niches that were central to 4th edition... instead, they're going to take the missed classes from this edition, and try to glean down a less-mechanical, more-flavor driven concept. They will still not lose sleep over the kind of mechanical balance that some players would like from the game.

[Misterwhisper]

Barbarian:

Because they streamlined all the monsters to pretty much just be huge meatbags with good damage and high HP, barbarian is a supertank. Huge Hp, cheap and easy resistances, good damage.
Nobody will stay in a fight longer.

Bard:

You do everything. Literally. You can make an entire party of nothing but bards and be perfectly fine.
Want skills: Lore gives more than anyone
Want powerful spells: Cherry pick whatever you want.
Social: In the bag, charisma based, amazing skills, and spells when all else fails.
Combat: Whispers, swords, or valor.

Cleric:

Unless you like the RP of it, not that impressive.
With the way HP works and death saves, nobody cares if you are a great healer or not.
Great variety in subclasses though.

Druid:

Limited crowd control. The major benefit is the versatility of wild shape.
Become god at level 20.

Fighter:

You get lots of attacks. Action surge is great too.
Battlemaster is the foundation of weapon combat in 5e.

Monk:

Before level 5 you have good attacks and speed.
After level 5 you are stunning fist machine... and that's about it.
Your ac is going to be low.
Your HP are just going to be average at best.
Your damage is just ok because you cant really take any of the broken feats.
You blow through ki to stun the big bad, and pray you don't die doing it.

Paladin:

Kings of burst damage, bulldozers in the 15 min adventuring day.
Smite is so good that most people ignore the rest and just go caster after.

Ranger:

A fighter who gives up attacks and some ASI to get a little better at skills and a little utility casting.
Deepstalker er... gloomstalker is one of the most OP subclasses in the game.

Rogue:

The class with no point.
Even if you sneak attack every round you are still only average.
Nobody cares about your skills because everything you do a bard just does better.
The only thing a rogue is good for is making concentration checks harder or an OA if you are lucky.
Reliable talent looks amazing on paper until you realized that every DM is just going to make all the DC's much harder arbitrarily so you have the same % chance to succeed as you used to.

Sorcerer:

The class that warlocks or paladins go after 1 or 2 levels in their class.
Metamagic being so lengthy between choices means it can't make up for your lack of versatility.

Warlock:

The 2 level dip class for anyone with charisma.
The best flavor and RP chance in the game but worst mechanics that nobody wants to deal with.

Wizard:

You get to have it all.
Far more spells than anyone else.
(also with the exception of like 2 spells that pretty much suck, you literally have every sorcerer spell)
Ever book will come out with new spells for you because nobody cares enough about martials to give them options.
Subclasses for everything.
(Also after the hard rule of "ac and saves are always going to be Gear + stat, or Stat + stat. and cantrips are just for backup. Literally the FIRST expansion book has Booming blade and green flame blade, and Blade singer who can add 2 stats + armor and +2 stats to their concentration, and gets extra attack, in the same damn book.)
Also like to point out that wizard got a second attack subclass in book 2, yet still not one for cleric or rogue.


Sorry missed one:

Artificer:

Not much impression at all, nobody wants to play one.
The base class is a halfassed caster vending machine and the subclasses are boring.
Alchemist is too random but gets stat to damage for some reason.
Artillerist lost its gun, and instead got more PC game rip off abilities.
Battlesmith is a pet subclass that they threw in half way with a half way int based weapon user. Do them both as different subclasses.

[stoutstien]

Setting aside role concepts which are fluidic in 5e what does each class bring that I would call a niche

Artificer - crafting and using magical items. Infusions, reduced crafting cost and time, and expertise in tools gives them a leg up even against full casters with fabricate/creation.

Barbarian- doesn't have one. It is a class with mediocre Melee damage and mediocre damage mitigation. While rage is a unique feature the results aren't so in the end we are left with a class with a lot of potential flavor but nothing to call its own.

Bard- build-a-bear full caster edition. Only class that can get certain spell combinations and bardic inspiration is a nice flexible resource. Might be the only class with no truly bad subclass picks.

Cleric- only full caster with the option to wear plate right from level one. Domain selection at 1st level is also unique. For a while they had a nice selection of cleric only spells but it feels that it won't be long before that isn't the case.

Druid- wild shapes is that good. Even for non moon druids it is like having 2 incredibly flexible mid level spell slots that recharge on a short rest. Is that enough to be considered a niche? Not sure.

Fighter- has the most ASI/feats. It's boring but technically unique.

Monk- has the most bad Subclasses *halfjoking*. Another class that doesn't really have a true thing that they can call there own.

Ranger- I got nothing. If I was looking for an Example of a class that is both decent at what it support to be and bad at it all at once the ranger is it.

Rogue- reliable skill checks. How useful it is will vary but it's there.

Sorcerer- see barbarian.

Warlock- should it have been a sorcerer subclass? Should it have been a wizard? Does it have enough to stand alone? Don't know. It does have quite a few unique features like at will spells Early on and short rest recharging slots.

Wizard- spell caster the class. In the end they have a bunch of stuff but it hard to single out any one thing that is truly a niche.