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

[CleverNickName]

SORCERER IS NOT BLOODLINES!!!!!!

Yeah, and wizards aren't schools of magic, and warlocks aren't pacts, and paladins aren't oaths, and etc.
At least, not until we try to talk about things that make them stand out from the rest.

 

[ezo]

Isn't the point of an RPG for us to give the classes identity?

Yes, it is.

 

[Horwath]

Fighter.

it's beyond generic

fighter features should embrace that.

extra attack and feat slots.
that is it.

 

[Krachek]

Fighter with sub classes Ranger, paladin, artificer, monk, barbarian, warlock hex blade.

Cleric, with sub classes druid

Rogue

Wizard with sub classes sorcerer, warlock fiend, witch and other.

Bard will stay a bizarre matchup of fighter, rogue, wizard and others.

 

[CleverNickName]

Fighter with sub classes Ranger, paladin, artificer, monk, barbarian, warlock hex blade.

Cleric, with sub classes druid

Rogue

Wizard with sub classes sorcerer, warlock fiend, witch and other.

Bard will stay a bizarre matchup of fighter, rogue, wizard and others.

You could move the bard and the ranger to be subclasses of "Rogue." The ranger would cover the sneaky sniper hunter trope, and the bard could cover the stealthy magical sneak trope.

 

[Mecheon]

Can we talk about the Artificer a moment? They are essentially "wizard(/sorcerer/warlock) who makes magic gear", and while they certainly have some unique abilities, their subclasses are so constraining. If their abilities were just rolled back into Wizard downtime creations, I wouldn't miss them - and having just recently started playing one, I think that's a shame. They really need a lot of development to turn them into a much broader class. They also tend to stick out like a sore thumb in "typical" S&S style campaigns, like trying to justifying including the monk.

"Makes magic gear" is enough of a story beat that they absolutely have massive identity that really wouldn't do well if merged back into wizard. They're the closest thing you can get to the tinkerer archetype. Mechanics aren't the best, sure, but the idea behind it is solid enough. If I want to be Wrenchester the gnomish inventor who builds his own weapons and inventions and uses them, I wouldn't expect 'wizard' to be the class to be to do that. Throwing bombs around and shooting with a gun isn't really wizard material, neither is "I've made a mechanical battlesuit". Heck, if anything most settings would move that sort of thing away from magic entirely, almost have it be the opposite of magic

Not traditional S&S but.... Traditional S&S isn't the dominant genre folks emultate these days and hasn't been since the 80s, maybe a few peaks in the 90s. Artificer well fits into the modern fantasy genre though.


Anyway, I voted for fighter and wizard per the comments up-thread. They're grab-bags, they don't really have their own thing. Frankly I think wizard's worse at this, it doesn't even have any mechanics tying into "You've studied magic" and all of its sub-classes are flavourless gap-fillers of "Yeah we said there were 9 schools of magic years ago, let's give them the barest showing", but fighter isn't great either.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You could move the bard and the ranger to be subclasses of "Rogue." The ranger would cover the sneaky sniper hunter trope, and the bard could cover the stealthy magical sneak trope.

I've heard this idea of the bard being a rogue derivative and I'm just wondering if they've seen the bard since the year 2000.

The bard... hasn't been a multiclass rogue thing for literally half the game's existence by now. They're (outside of 4e) uniquely THE control class with a large skill loadout and the skill load is the ONLY rogue-like thing about them. They're not mobility fighters, they're not high damage, they're not about stealth or positioning and the spell casting variant is a telekinetic, not a mind bender.

It's like saying you could use this delicious brick instead of butter on your morning toast.

 

[ECMO3]

Hypothetically, if D&D had to reduce the number of classes, and they where going to remove the ones that has the least identity, which ones would go?

Presume the options to play the character would still be in the game somewhere, just not as a class.
I.e. Fighter gets moved under Ranger, Wizard is a Sorcerer option, ect...

I don't really look at the classes as an identity. I look at them as a collection of mechanics that afford the opportunity to mold into the identity you desire (or alternatively prevent that).

In consideration of that strong thematic identity with a class is a bad thing IMO.

Classes with the least identity would be the ones that can fill a lot of different roles depending on how you build them. Warlock, Wizard, Cleric and Ranger and tops in this reapect and those are the ones I would most want to keep. I can build a Ranger to fill any role and do a good job at it. I can build a Wizard to fill any role except healer and do an outstanding job at most of them. These classes afford for the most variation in them and the least tied mechanically into an archetype and that is a good thing.

The ones with the strongest identity are those that it is very difficult to build against the Archetype. Those are Sorcerer and Barbarian IMO, those are the classes that have the strongest identity and would be two of the classes I would be most ok with getting rid of.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's like saying you could use this delicious brick instead of butter on your morning toast.

It was just a suggestion.

 

[Tonguez]

Can we talk about the Artificer a moment? They are essentially "wizard(/sorcerer/warlock) who makes magic gear", and while they certainly have some unique abilities, their subclasses are so constraining. If their abilities were just rolled back into Wizard downtime creations, I wouldn't miss them - and having just recently started playing one, I think that's a shame. They really need a lot of development to turn them into a much broader class. They also tend to stick out like a sore thumb in "typical" S&S style campaigns, like trying to justifying including the monk.

I think the Artificer is brilliant as a 'arcane tinkerer' class but it doesnt fit in standard DnD fantasy, though it does meld well with Warforged and other technomagical worlds.