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

[tetrasodium]

Class identity is subjective. It's how we perceive the class.

Read the OP more closely, identity not about the vestigial fluff you are talking about.

They can't force a class identity on us.

Yes wotc can very much do that by way of how the class mechanics are designed and written. Fluff and lore are not identity. The only way that would change as you describe is if a player or gm rewrote the class entirely into an entirely new class with an identity that didn't involve being a subclass of a different class.

Next started experimenting with a sorcerer that was very much more focused on gaining traits from their bloodline & such at one point but ultimately went with "wizard but hot" as crawford says

 

[Maxperson]

Read the OP more closely, identity not about the vestigial fluff you are talking about.

Yes it is. The OP makes no distinction between mechanics and lore. It simply asks which has the least identity. Mechanics are subordinate to the lore. You don't create a class that can explore things and have a favored enemy and then come up with the ranger lore. You have the ranger concept and you come up with mechanics to support the lore you have created.

Yes wotc can very much do that by way of how the class mechanics are designed and written. Fluff and lore are not identity. The only way that would change as you describe is if a player or gm rewrote the class entirely into an entirely new class with an identity that didn't involve being a subclass of a different class.

We may be talking about two different things. I'm talking about existing lore. WotC is utterly incapable of telling me how I view the class identity of the existing lore and mechanics. You seem to be indicating that they can change the identity by creating all new lore and mechanics, which is true, but not what the OP is talking about. It's talking about existing classes and lore.

Fluff and lore are not only identity, but they are the primary identity of a class. Mechanics are created to support that lore identity, not the other way around.

Next started experimenting with a sorcerer that was very much more focused on gaining traits from their bloodline & such at one point but ultimately went with "wizard but hot" as crawford says

We will see when the 5.5e PHB comes out. Then and only then(assuming it's not released in a preview) will we know what the Sorcerer lore says and can assess the identity of the Sorcerer and see if they did a good job of backing that lore identity up with supportive mechanics.

 

[Tonguez]

Why should they?

I just think the game is more immersive when everyone can do the same kinds of things with weapons. I think it is more fun. It is more or less how the original Paladin and Ranger were integrated into 1E as well (could do everything a fighter can do and more).

Thats not entirely true Rangers were only D8 HP instead of D10 and both Ranger and Paladin had more restrictions and markedly slower XP progression than Fighter. With the removal of restrictions and penalties the other classes have come to match the Fighter plus get their magical and skill bonuses, yet for some inexplicable reason some people continue to oppose making Fighters "unparalleled" with weapons and combat, but why?

Why is it okay to give Rangers and Paladins more but not Fighters? Why not let Fighters have Weapon Expertise, Weapon Masteries, Defiant HP surges, Superior Maneuvers, Fearlessness, Inspirational Rallying Cry and Death Defying Stunts?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Why should they?

why should i play a fighter if they're just objectively worse then literally everyone else? why should i include a fighter if i'm just going to design it to be objectively worse then literally everyone else? what's even the point?

I just think the game is more immersive when everyone can do the same kinds of things with weapons.

i don't, because that's not how skills (in the broader sense, not the specific skill proficiency sense of 5e) work. do you know how to fight with a greatsword, or a halberd, or a lucerne hammer? do you think the average person does? how about electrical engineers, or modern special forces units, or american deep south militiamen?

fighters can (hypothetically) do amazing things with weapons because that's what they train to do, like how wizards can do amazing things with magic because that's what they train (well, study) to do. a fighter can't do amazing things with magic because that's not what they learn to do...so why should wizards be doing amazing things with weapons even though it's NOT what they learn to do?

I think it is more fun.

It is more or less how the original Paladin and Ranger were integrated into 1E as well (could do everything a fighter can do and more).

poor past design does not justify poor modern design.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes it is. The OP makes no distinction between mechanics and lore. It simply asks which has the least identity. Mechanics are subordinate to the lore. You don't create a class that can explore things and have a favored enemy and then come up with the ranger lore. You have the ranger concept and you come up with mechanics to support the lore you have created.

We may be talking about two different things. I'm talking about existing lore. WotC is utterly incapable of telling me how I view the class identity of the existing lore and mechanics. You seem to be indicating that they can change the identity by creating all new lore and mechanics, which is true, but not what the OP is talking about. It's talking about existing classes and lore.

Fluff and lore are not only identity, but they are the primary identity of a class. Mechanics are created to support that lore identity, not the other way around.

We will see when the 5.5e PHB comes out. Then and only then(assuming it's not released in a preview) will we know what the Sorcerer lore says and can assess the identity of the Sorcerer and see if they did a good job of backing that lore identity up with supportive mechanics.

Fluff & lore is trivial to move from one class to another. Wotc could declare the the fighter's core identity was using the inmate power of their bolted on bloodline to swing weapons with more power than your average soldier. They could not bolt on the mechanics of casting the wizard spell list &slot progression to fighter barbarian or rogue without significant redesign of both though. That is the reason why mechanics matter so much to what the op wrote.

 

[ECMO3]

why should i play a fighter if they're just objectively worse then literally everyone else? why should i include a fighter if i'm just going to design it to be objectively worse then literally everyone else? what's even the point?

It is not worse than anyone else. It is better than Monk, Barbarian and arguably Rogue at most levels, especially if you choose a good subclass.

Moreover you would play it because that is what you wanted to play, and if you wanted to play a more powerful class you would play a more powerful class.

Many people play fighters now, let me ask you - why do you think they play them?

fighters can (hypothetically) do amazing things with weapons because that's what they train to do, like how wizards can do amazing things with magic because that's what they train (well, study) to do. a fighter can't do amazing things with magic because that's not what they learn to do...so why should wizards be doing amazing things with weapons even though it's NOT what they learn to do?

Because Wizards train with weapons too

 

[Tonguez]

Because Wizards train with weapons too

yeah me knowing how to shoot a rabbit doesnt mean I have the skills to match a military sniper

 

[ECMO3]

What's the point of a class that does the same thing as everybody and doesn't get to be unique?

Like I said they do get a few unique things and their subclasses or very unique and the point of playing any class is that you want to play that class.

Lots and lots of people play fighters.

And sure, you can count Action Surge and Second Wind and stuff, but those are specific mechanics of 5e. What is the Fighter good for conceptually? What's its unique schtick concept that nobody else gets?

We are talking about mechanics aren't we? If you want unique concepts just read the PHB

" perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons ..... well rounded specialists .... trained for danger"

Those kind of unique flavor items don't really matter a lot to me when I play fighters, but if you are really worried about concepts that is it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Moreover you would play it because that is what you wanted to play, and if you wanted to play a more powerful class you would play a more powerful class.

I'm going to be brave and say game designers shouldn't strike out to intentionally make one class in particular inferior to the others.

 

[ECMO3]

yeah me knowing how to shoot a rabbit doesnt mean I have the skills to match a military sniper

And likely a Wizard who did not put ASIs and feats toward that would not match a fighter, but if he did he absolutely should.

If my Wizard takes dex ASIs and a subclass that offers extra attack and sharpshooter he should be as good at shooting a rabbit as the fighter that does the same.

If my Wizard takes intelligence ASIs and Warcaster he shouldn't be .... and more importantly he won't be.