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

[jmartkdr2]

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...

It would be if they were actually better at fighting than anybody else.

But if fighters are just plain better at fighting, what are barbarians good at? If a raging barbarian isn't just as good as a fighter at attacking enemies with weapons, barbarians are pointless. If they are, fighters have no niche.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Bard" just means Shakespeare to non-fantasy-buffs

Not in Wales.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Not in Wales.

I was talking about Americans.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

what are barbarians good at

Taking hits.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

This was covered

Spoiler: earlier

With 5e "having this massive [spell] list that no one else has" is the wizard's identity. Unfortunately the very next thing crawford said there about protecting that identity was never done in 2014 when they gave basically the entire wizard spell list to sorcerers

Your description of the sorcerer identity is entirely unrelated to anything in play or mechanics though becausethey don't have a meaningfully limited spell pool they have the exact same spell slots & spell progression & your comparison somewhat depends on an assumprion/implication that wizards are swapping out prepared spells regularly.

We are talking about class design & how their mechanics result in being played in an indistinguishable way at the table not writing a novel where "imagination" rather than mechanical design is the deciding factor.

The fluff used to justify casting the same spells from virtually the entire wizard spell list using a different attribute is just that(fluff). The fact that they are casting the same spells from virtually the entire wizard spell list as practically their entire thing irather than something unique is why the bloodline is unused.

 

[Yaarel]

Brainstorming.

What if the Gishes:

Paladin = Divine (Astral) gish
Barbarian = Primal (Material) gish
Ranger = Arcane (Ethereal) gish
Monk = Psionic (Soul) gish

It would mean the ranger loses the "wilderness" flavor, albeit still keep Fey and Shadow flavor, and refocus full-on as the missing Arcane "2/3rds caster".

The Ranger animal flavor would be a kind of Fey or Shadow familiar.

It would be more magical. It would mostly be a skirmisher focusing on Strength and Athletics, and mobility, but a subclass can be a tanky knight.

The Barbarian can have subclasses to lean into shamanic magic of shapeshifting or of half-caster.

Meanwhile D&D "Wilderness" forestfolk flavor is mostly a background trait for low tier anyway. Enhancing backgrounds at higher tiers, such using backgrounds to construct a bastion and assemble followers, would benefit all backgrounds including Wilderness.


There is a need for nonmagical Ranger, but the Fighter class itself should split into two classes for heavy armor knight and light armor skirmisher. The skirmisher is this nonmagical Ranger.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i think you might need to turn your perception of the meaning of 'unparraleled mastery of weapons and combat' up a notch or six, a ranger, paladin or barb can definitely hold their own in combat but a fighter should be dancing through the battlefield slaying half of them and incapacitating the rest with effects and conditions at every turn, there's a reason people latch onto the battlemaster maneuvres in every 'improve the fighter' conversation.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It would be if they were actually better at fighting than anybody else.

But if fighters are just plain better at fighting, what are barbarians good at? If a raging barbarian isn't just as good as a fighter at attacking enemies with weapons, barbarians are pointless. If they are, fighters have no niche.

'being good at fighting' should be more than just dealing big damage, the barb can and should be good at dealing and tanking big damage, but the fighter should be good through other avenues in combat (see my above post)

 

[jmartkdr2]

i think you might need to turn your perception of the meaning of 'unparraleled mastery of weapons and combat' up a notch or six, a ranger, paladin or barb can definitely hold their own in combat but a fighter should be dancing through the battlefield slaying half of them and incapacitating the rest with effects and conditions at every turn, there's a reason people latch onto the battlemaster maneuvres in every 'improve the fighter' conversation.

I can see fighters being the best at using the specifics of weapons (ie get more out of reach or the difference between a sword and an axe) but they can't be the "unparalleled masters of combat" without creating more problems then you solve.

 

[Maxperson]

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...

If they had written the base class to be unparalleled, that would give a bit of class identity, but they didn't. As it stands, Fighters are paralleled in weapons by Rangers and Barbarians. Paladins and Clerics parallel them with armor. And if you had asked me to guess which class you meant by "staring death defiantly in the face" I would have guessed Barbarian without hesitation. To my mind Paladins and Fighters may be fearless, but it's Barbarians who spit in death's face as they go down fighting.