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

[I'm A Banana]

It's interesting to me that the most generic class - Fighter - is also one of the most popular. Kind of wonder if there's meaning in that correlation.

But yes, Fighters don't have much of an identity as a class. A lot of different identities can roll up to the Fighter class, but if we were to kill it and distribute its options & archetypes among other classes, I don't think we'd be missing a lot.

Cleric was one I chose that the majority didn't choose. Cleric is so dependent on deity/domain that a light cleric and a life cleric and a trickery cleric and a war cleric all kind of cover the main bases of the big four classes. The cleric by itself is not much, and if we were to distribute healing more, we could see a cleric's options redistributed to other classes and I think actually get something a little better (why does a war god prefer clerics over fighters or paladins? why can't we have a "war god" option for fighters, for instance?)

 

[Mind of tempest]

It's not just about copying spells in a spellbook. It's about having the right spell for the right moment prepared at the right time. It's about planning ahead, thinking about the obstacles one might face and setting up what they need to do it. In other words, they're nerd casters.

Sorcerers are the caster jocks. They've only got a few tricks but they're real good at them and they've even learned how to manipulate them more flexible than their limited spell pool would otherwise leave them. They're the "when all you have is a hammer" caster.

At the risk of straining for a metaphor, it is like saying why should Batman exist when we already have a perfectly fine Superhero in Superman, what's even the difference anyway.

Playing them mechanically the exact same way is failure of imagination with the player, not the design of the class.

if nerd and jock casters exist are there other American high school social category casters?

Sorcerer for all the reasons others have stated.

I also can’t get into the monk. I find them pretty bland.

monks simply are based on badly understood ideas from some guy who read a mediocre set of novels, it could be made better by just going back to what its fantasy is and watching more media with mystical martial artists in it and work outwards.

 

[Gradine]

if nerd and jock casters exist are there other American high school social category casters?

Well, you've got the church kids, the hippies, shop kids, musical theatre kids, and the burnouts buying essays off of Chegg. So... yeah, we got it covered

 

[Mind of tempest]

Well, you've got the church kids, the hippies, shop kids, musical theatre kids, and the burnouts buying essays off of Chegg. So... yeah, we got it covered

what is a burnout in this context what is a chegg?

from my watching of old movies they spoke of something called a prep(not the overpriced food place) and some speak of goths who I am assured are different from emos in some quantify way beyond preferred bands are they options?

 

[Remathilis]

Does every thread have to be about this?

Part of the fighter's lack of identity is his lack of meaningful options beside whacking things with swords, so yeah. Even compared to other martials (barbarian, monk, ranger, paladin or blood hunter) the fighter has limited options.

 

[Remathilis]

Can we define "identity."

What exactly are you looking for??

I defined it above, but it's mechanics + story.

The druid is a good example. It has a clear role in the fiction (nature priest) and mechanical role (wild shape, primal spellcasting). The druid doesn't play like other classes, though it is similar enough that someone familiar with other classes can figure it out.

The fighter lacks a strong story: it's a stand in for every PC who uses weapons and armor that doesn't have anything cooler going on. His abilities are lackluster and he is overshadowed by most other classes. To give him identity, you must pretend it's something else (knight, samurai, gladiator, etc).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

This question can be answered in a few ways.

The classes that for some lack “game identity” do so because they are necessarily broad.

Think of “the old wise person” in jungian sorts of archetypes. How many cultures have a sense of what a “warrior” is supposed to be? The things that people say lack identity actually have the most identity historically.

A van helsing sort of cleric has its most direct roots to literature back 100 years. A fighter is older than civilization. An artificer? That’s much newer and less universal.

In terms of what a class does, a fighter has a very clear identity even if some find it to be a narrow focus.

 

[Remathilis]

This question can be answered in a few ways.

The classes that for some lack “game identity” do so because they are necessarily broad.

Think of “the old wise person” in jungian sorts of archetypes. How many cultures have a sense of what a “warrior” is supposed to be? The things that people say lack identity actually have the most identity historically.

A van helsing sort of cleric has its most direct roots to literature back 100 years. A fighter is older than civilization. An artificer? That’s much newer and less universal.

In terms of what a class does, a fighter has a very clear identity even if some find it to be a narrow focus.

It just is weird to have the hyper-specific archetypes like divine knight or spellcasting troubadour next to the generic "uses weapons" and "casts all arcane magic" ones. What ends up happening is people try to take the hyper-specific ones and cram them into the generic ones, often killing the interesting parts of the specific and overstuffing the generic to the point of incomprehensiblity. I mean, if the fighter represents a knight, a soldier, a samurai and a gladiator already, why not also make him represent a barbarian, a monk, a paladin and a ranger?

I'd rather they add more hyper specific classes and remove the generic, but most people here are racing to the bottom to get as few classes as possible.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I would also add that the idea of defining your unique character is not always helped by a complicated mechanical push.

When 2e came out, I realized we were playing a lot of those kits/characters without the rules for them. And I frankly thought the over specialization of prestige classes was not a help.

So too many of the niche subclasses
In 5e seem forced and too specific in some ways. They are not archetypal and are almost random to me.

I liked 3e and love 5e so not undue criticism just observations. This thread and question are interesting! But the question is loaded with a lot of assumption.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It just is weird to have the hyper-specific archetypes like divine knight or spellcasting troubadour next to the generic "uses weapons" and "casts all arcane magic" ones. What ends up happening is people try to take the hyper-specific ones and cram them into the generic ones, often killing the interesting parts of the specific and overstuffing the generic to the point of incomprehensiblity. I mean, if the fighter represents a knight, a soldier, a samurai and a gladiator already, why not also make him represent a barbarian, a monk, a paladin and a ranger?

I'd rather they add more hyper specific classes and remove the generic, but most people here are racing to the bottom to get as few classes as possible.

Sorry cross posted before reading your response!