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

[Yaarel]

In short: Let the Fighter have unique abilities!

It is easier to give the Fighter class distinctive powers and more versatile narrative powers at high tiers, if the class stops being the every-kind-of-fighting-style-imaginable class.

Split the Fighter into separate classes:

• Knight (heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher (light infantry)
• Archer (artillery)
• Rogue (stealth)
• Warlord (command)


Even if there are only four classes:

Fighter (knight)
Rogue (skirmisher, rogue, archer)
Bard (warlord inspiration)
Wizard (warlord tactics)

There needs to be ample subclass design space to fully flesh out the separate concepts.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Bard (warlord inspiration)
Wizard (warlord tactics)

ew, no. don't shove the warlord into casters. that's gross. get them out of there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is easier to give the Fighter class distinctive powers and more versatile narrative powers at high tiers, if the class stops being the every-kind-of-fighting-style-imaginable class.

Split the Fighter into separate classes:

• Knight (heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher (light infantry)
• Archer (artillery)
• Rogue (stealth)
• Warlord (command)

Or at least ramp up their fighting style effects. I've said in the past that one place I'd start with a fighter-warlord is by making a support fighting style (e.g. Direct the Strike).

And we also need to do better for the defenders/tanks.

Bard (warlord inspiration)
Wizard (warlord tactics)

Please no. Fighters should be inspiring and tactical without magic.

 

[Remathilis]

Per @mellored OP's mission statement; as of this post the classes with the least identity are sorcerer (51), fighter (45), wizard (29), and ranger (26). After this, there are a cluster of classes in the mid-teens: artificer (14), warlock and cleric (13), barbarian (12), bard (11), and rogue and monk (10). Lastly, still in single digits, is paladin (4) and druid (2).

If the goal stated was " if D&D had to reduce the number of classes, and they were going to remove the ones that has the least identity, which ones would go?" Then an interesting conundrum develops: you remove the two martial classes with the weakest mechanical identity and the two arcane classes whose identity is "casts magic". That is; the "I hit stuff" and the "I cast stuff" classes that don't speak to any single archetype are the most bemoaned. What do we do about that?

Arguably, you could just smash ranger into fighter and make sorcerer and wizard one class again and be done with it, but I don't know if having them absorb another class would help the whole "no identity" problem. Alternatively, you could break the sorc/wiz into thematic casters (warmage, beguiler, necromancer, summoner) rather than a division by origin/casting mechanic. The fighter could probably stand to break into a couple different martial classes (warlord, cavalier, skirmisher, gish) of which the ranger could be mixed into. But what I find most interesting is that this really breaks the notion of the "generic classes, custom subclasses" since per the OP, the generic classes were the ones highest on the chopping block.

Or, alternatively, most of the voters didn't read and the whole thing a popularity contest and petty grievance airing. And so it goes...

 

[mellored]

you remove the two martial classes with the weakest mechanical identity and the two arcane classes whose identity is "casts magic". That is; the "I hit stuff" and the "I cast stuff" classes that don't speak to any single archetype are the most bemoaned. What do we do about that?

Ranger can go into Barbarian. Both are weapon + nature theme. Have a Hunters Rage option that works with bows but limited to 1 target, and add a Beastmaster subclass.

And I fighter can be a Oath of War. Lay on Hands is already a bonus action, so just add Channel Divinity: Action Surge.

Sorcerer could be a bard, and you can use your inspiration dice as metamagic.

Wizard... Wand Artificer maybe? It's the only other Int class.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ranger can go into Barbarian. Both are weapon + nature theme. Have a Hunters Rage option that works with bows but limited to 1 target, and add a Beastmaster subclass.

And I fighter can be a Oath of War. Lay on Hands is already a bonus action, so just add Channel Divinity: Action Surge.

Sorcerer could be a bard, and you can use your inspiration dice as metamagic.

Wizard... Wand Artificer maybe? It's the only other Int class.

oh wow i would HATE doing all of these

 

[Mecheon]

Or, alternatively, most of the voters didn't read and the whole thing a popularity contest and petty grievance airing. And so it goes...

I mean I reckon its valid, otherwise Bard would probably be getting more votes

As the number 1 sorcerer defender though, I'm pretty sure the sorcerer dislike is on the mechanical identity, because they've got a strong thematic one but a poor mechanical one, which is why merging them with the also fairly maligned wizard won't work

 

[Remathilis]

I mean I reckon its valid, otherwise Bard would probably be getting more votes

As the number 1 sorcerer defender though, I'm pretty sure the sorcerer dislike is on the mechanical identity, because they've got a strong thematic one but a poor mechanical one, which is why merging them with the also fairly maligned wizard won't work

I feel the same is true of fighter and ranger. Ranger lacks any strong central mechanic to lean on, and fighters are basically a bunch of semi-passive abilities that make you good at the things everyone can already do.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I mean I reckon its valid, otherwise Bard would probably be getting more votes

As the number 1 sorcerer defender though, I'm pretty sure the sorcerer dislike is on the mechanical identity, because they've got a strong thematic one but a poor mechanical one, which is why merging them with the also fairly maligned wizard won't work

I think a lot of people actually think sorcerer lacks a thematic core, as it's just "you can do magic because reasons" - it's mechanical identity (metamagic) might actually be clearer if underpowered.

 

[Mecheon]

I feel the same is true of fighter and ranger. Ranger lacks any strong central mechanic to lean on, and fighters are basically a bunch of semi-passive abilities that make you good at the things everyone can already do.

Fighter's "You're the everyman" kind of erodes away at them having a unique identity I'd add. That's the problem with it. You can't be the grab-bag for every 'uses a weapon' idea given every other class uses a weapon, and have a unique identity

I think a lot of people actually think sorcerer lacks a thematic core, as it's just "you can do magic because reasons" - it's mechanical identity (metamagic) might actually be clearer if underpowered.

I mean, BG3 proves it has a thematic one with how hard it ties into your customisation if nothing else. "You can get dragon scales and horns by picking this because you're half dragon" is an absolutely massive perk just by itself. Its just the mechanics that fail then

which. Wouldn't have been a problem with playtest sorcerer leaning further into that.