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%

Occasionally, I see the "barbaric ancient pagan child sacrificers" and the "neo pagan hippie" used, but both in a more specific context. Druid, paladin, bard and warlock are all sufficiently old and rarely used that most people would probably use some version of a fantasy character concept to describe them, even if the idea didn't conform to any one games interpretation.
I think that for druids in specific (and to a lesser extent bards) there is a huge trans-Atlantic difference, with Brits generally being well aware of them (and Caesar's "conquest" of Britain) and them fitting our nature-priest archetype, while Americans are much more aware of Native American sources.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I predict lots of people confusing "niche" with "identity" in the next few threads...

My vote was going to be for Sorcerer but it's not on the list. Which makes sense, considering how little of an identity it has.
Sorcerer is third from the bottom with fighter and rogue falling in the least identity slots.

"I fight!" and "I use weapons and armor!" involve no identity at all. "I'm a scoundrel!" and "I'm a skill monkey!" are likewise devoid of any class identity. "I intuitively understand how magic works!" and "I have magic inborn due to powerful or magical blood!" at least have some identity.

The problem is that I can't see how to axe either fighter or rogue. Both have subclasses that give identity and which don't fit beneath any other class.
 

I think that for druids in specific (and to a lesser extent bards) there is a huge trans-Atlantic difference, with Brits generally being well aware of them (and Caesar's "conquest" of Britain) and them fitting our nature-priest archetype, while Americans are much more aware of Native American sources.
As a Yank; I don't think I've ever heard of a Native American being called a druid (or bard) - both are associated with Britain.

Now, the details? Yeah, we probably get them mixed up all the time. If you looked at 100 drawings of druids made by Americans, I'd bet a majority have specifically Native American touches like Zuni ritual masks or totem poles in the Background, and half of them will be named "shaman" despite that being a Eurasian term.

("Bard" just means Shakespeare to non-fantasy-buffs)
 

It comes down to the fact that that "inborn magic bloodline" is an unused facade stapled to a full on wizard with extra features that make it better at being a wizard instead of actually being a class that in play at the table is distinct in from wizard like moon druids are from cleric or land druids.
I disagree. The class itself doesn't use spellbooks or memorization like wizards do, so right out of the gate the "inborn magic bloodline" is being used. Sorcery points are also a representation of the bloodline. Then the subclass choice enhances that use from there.
 

3.5 unearthed arcana introduced them as something kinda sorta midway between class & PrC but not quite either
BLOODLINE LEVELS
Over the course of his career, a character with a bloodline be-
comes more powerful than one without a bloodline. Because
the power gain is gradual over a span of twenty levels, a static
level adjustment doesn’t truly reflect this difference. Instead, a
bloodline character must take one or more levels of “bloodline”
at various points in his career, as noted on Table 1–2: Bloodline
Levels. Before a character with a bloodline reaches the indicated
character level, he must take one class level of “bloodline.” Class
levels of “bloodline” do not increase a character’s character level
the way a normal class level does, but they do provide certain
benefits (see below).
If the character does not take a class level of bloodline before
reaching the character level indicated on the table, he gains
no further bloodline traits and must take a 20% penalty on all
future XP gains. As soon as he meets the minimum bloodline
level, he gains all bloodline abilities due him according to his
character level, and the XP penalty no longer applies.
For example, Alarion is a 1st-level character with a major
bloodline (silver dragon). The bloodline trait he receives at 1st
level is a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks. When he reaches 2nd
character level, he gains the Alertness feat as a bloodline trait. Be-
fore he reaches 3rd character level, he must take a level of blood-
line in order to continue gaining bloodline traits. If he reaches
3rd character level and has no bloodline levels, he does not gain
the bloodline trait due him at 3rd character level (Strength +1)
and must take a 20% reduction on all future XP gains. If he later
meets the minimum required bloodline levels, he gains his 3rd-
level trait at that time (as well as any other traits he may have
failed to receive for not taking his bloodline level right away),
and the XP reduction no longer applies to future gains. Before
reaching his 6th character level, he must have taken two levels
of bloodline in order to keep gaining bloodline traits. If he takes
his third bloodline level before reaching 12th character level, he
becomes eligible to gain all the traits of his bloodline (as they
become available when he reaches new character levels).
A bloodline level grants no increase in base attack bonus or
base save bonuses, no hit points or skill points, and no class
features. It counts as a normal class level (with no class skills)
for the purpose of determining maximum skill ranks. Levels of
bloodline never result in XP penalties for multiclass characters.
Include the character’s bloodline level when calculating any
character ability based on his class levels (such as caster level for
spellcasting characters, or save DCs for characters with special
abilities whose DCs are based on class level). The character
doesn’t gain any abilities, spells known, or spells per day from
the addition of his bloodline levels, though—only the calcula-
tions of his level-based abilities are affected.
If a character has levels in two or more classes in addition to
his bloodline levels, each class gains the benefit of adding the
bloodline levels when calculating abilities.
For example, a 2nd-level sorcerer with a major bloodline takes
a bloodline level when earns enough XP to advance in level. He
is treated as a 3rd-level spellcaster for the purpose of spell du-
rations, caster level checks, and so forth. But he doesn’t gain a
3rd-level sorcerer’s spells per day or spells known.
Similarly, the stunning attacks of a 3rd-level monk with one
bloodline level have a save DC equal to 12 (10 + one-half class
level) plus her Wisdom modifier, since the bloodline level is
treated as if it were a monk class level when calculating the save
DC. A 3rd-level monk/3rd-level sorcerer with two bloodline
levels would be treated as a 5th-level spellcaster and a 5th-level
monk for determining level-based abilities.
It introduced bloodlines, not sorcerer bloodlines. They are separate things.
 

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.
A ranger isn't inherently uncivilized. It can be, but doesn't have to be. There are no civilized(in the sense of cities and towns) barbarians. Those classes can't merge.

Fighter encompasses mercenaries, knights, swashbucklers, samurai, and on and on. None of those are divine powered casters, so it doesn't fit at all under paladin.

Sorcerers are in no way musical artists, so they don't in any way fit into bard.

It seems like you are only viewing classes as mechanics and are ignoring the flavor that represents more of a class's identity than the mechanics do.
 

Sorcerer is third from the bottom with fighter and rogue falling in the least identity slots.

"I fight!" and "I use weapons and armor!" involve no identity at all. "I'm a scoundrel!" and "I'm a skill monkey!" are likewise devoid of any class identity. "I intuitively understand how magic works!" and "I have magic inborn due to powerful or magical blood!" at least have some identity.

The problem is that I can't see how to axe either fighter or rogue. Both have subclasses that give identity and which don't fit beneath any other class.

You can break them up into a couple more thematic classes. Champion and battle master should be rolled into base classes, arcane archer/EK/rune knight and psi warrior all could be part of a gish class. Warlord, cavalier and samurai part of a knight class. I feel rogue has a little more personality, so I don't have thoughts on it, but a gish and knight would be better than Fighter.
 

You can break them up into a couple more thematic classes. Champion and battle master should be rolled into base classes, arcane archer/EK/rune knight and psi warrior all could be part of a gish class. Warlord, cavalier and samurai part of a knight class. I feel rogue has a little more personality, so I don't have thoughts on it, but a gish and knight would be better than Fighter.
Oh, sure. If you're going to be creating more classes you can break them up. And break off some subclasses that deserve a class of their own from other classes. WotC is just allergic to adding new classes, so I had written off going in that direction.
 

Sorcerer is third from the bottom with fighter and rogue falling in the least identity slots.

"I fight!" and "I use weapons and armor!" involve no identity at all. "I'm a scoundrel!" and "I'm a skill monkey!" are likewise devoid of any class identity. "I intuitively understand how magic works!" and "I have magic inborn due to powerful or magical blood!" at least have some identity.

The problem is that I can't see how to axe either fighter or rogue. Both have subclasses that give identity and which don't fit beneath any other class.

I think "unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat" is a distinct identity that sets Fighter apart from others even more so when you add "staring death defiantly in the face". The problem is that the people keep denying the Fighter their unparalleled mastery by just turning it down to "I use weapons and armor" - the Fighter is much more than "I fight" and if anything they should default to being Kensei (rather than having it co-opted by Monk) plus a whole lot more"death defying" - but thats another debate...
 

I think "unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat" is a distinct identity that sets Fighter apart from others even more so when you add "staring death defiantly in the face".
How does it set a fighter apart from a paladin? And it only slightly sets them apart from a ranger (armour) and only a little further from a barbarian.

This is a genuine problem the fighter has. If D&D were being created now then the Ranger would be the primal casting fighter subclass and the Paladin the divine casting fighter subclass. And the barbarian a ragey fighter subclass. All these would work and work well - but they make it hard to pick out the fighter in specific and what they can do better than their ascended subclasses.
 

Remove ads

Top