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

[TwoSix]

Tautology is equally fun. D&D class exists because this is D&D is equally absurd.

But that was my point: we accept the existence of certain classes (fighter, ranger, barbarian, sorcerer) and not others (assassin, illusionist, warlord, psion) and there is no logical reason to do that, except tradition. Trying to argue validity of why a sorcerer should be a class and not a subclass of wizard is like arguing why chocolate should be on the Baskin & Robbin's 31 flavors, but not Blue Moon. The argument that there should be a 4e level of classes and the argument there should be no classes are both valid because the criteria for both is "my feelings"

We can't have a "there's no right answer" take, this is the internet!

 

[tetrasodium]

Except everything I was talking about were mechanics, they are just mechanics that you now evidently pretend are never actually used.

I have, in fact! And I've had Wizard players who play the game as written, as novel as that apparently sounds to you. I've had a Wizard and a Sorcerer in the same party (same race too!) and they could not have played more differently. And this was at launch, no less!

What you appear to be describing are players who'd prefer to be playing Sorcerers but don't, presumably because of (both real and perceived) balance issues. And I'll be the first to admit that Sorcerers are unbalanced compared to Wizards, but that's not an issue of class identity.

Your argument was that the classes were designed to have no meaningful mechanical differences in identity. This is evidently false, and a course correction to "but no one actually plays it that way!" changes nothing in that regard.

I will, of course, never say no to changes that make those differences even more evident. A more meaningfully different spell list would be a great place to start, honestly. Something like the Bard's spell secrets would be perfect, honestly.

Stop this.... You are constructing arguments going beyond the disagreement as if it's settled rather than making an effort to clear it up by way of anything but pointing towards a snipe hunt.

Earlier you groused about how you used the word mechanically in this sentence and that it meant you were talking about mechanics... When told that it wasn't talking about mechanics you just moved on and continued as if a snipe hunt changed that. What specific mechanics are being referenced in the offending sentence you claimed to be about mechanics?

.

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

It would be helpful if you cite them with quotes or details specific enough to clearly identify them without guessing.

 

[Mephista]

Musings on the Fighter identity...

Even Mearls, at one point, noted that Fighter wasn't really built around a story like the other classes were.

Oh, sure, the class writeup up talks about the mercenary, the town guard, the ex-soldier, the farmer boy practicing with his family blade and dreams of adventure.

But the class itself is just a mix of 3e and 4e mechanics, with subclasses that are 3e Fighter, 4e style Fighter, fighter-wizard multiclass, fighter-psion mix.

There's zero ties to Archetypes or tropes. It's "pick your edition" or "pick your not-a-multiclass-dip."

 

[jmartkdr2]

Upon further reflection, I don't mind that classes like fighter and wizard have fairly thin identity as classes - the subclasses can make up for that by adding identity and flavor at that level. After all, you're not meant to play the class without a subclass.

Fighters suffer a bit from a first impression problem: the fighter subclasses in the PHB don't do a good job filling in the identity, but the post-core subclasses all offer excellent examples of how to do that. Even the Arcane Archer doesn't lack for identity or flavor; it's just weak so the mechanics don't support the fantasy. The most popular third-party subclasses in the game (according to my experience: gunslinger and echo knight) also overflow with flavor. But the core options? Not so much.

If the base fighter is white bread, the Champion is buttered toast or maybe a grilled cheese. But that's fine - there's a taste even if it isn't complex. The Eldritch Knight is just a really clunky, unintuitive and self-hampered attempt at something classic. The Rune Knight does a vastly better job at getting the idea across and making it playable. The Battlemaster is just more chassis with no body - even more tools to build to the flavor you bring from something else. You can build a samurai or cavalier or gladiator or gunslinger with a battlemaster, but if you've selected you class, subclass, and fighting style, you shouldn't to go get the spice from somewhere else.

If the Rune Knight and Samurai were core and the Eldritch Knight and swordsage Battlemaster came later, I think the fighter would be polling a lot better.

The wizard's issue isn't really a lack of flavor (I changed my vote) - even the basic wizard has an identity of being a bookish, skill-based magic user (rather than faithful or charming or bound to something - a wizard is pure skill) and the subclasses often add a lot of extra identity on top - a necromancer is a great, complete, possibly even over-flavored concept. But the mechanics don't support the subclasses because the basic spellcasting feature is already so strong. I played a conjurer to 20th and conjuring was almost never worth the effort; fireball is just too good and I didn't get a conjuring-boosting feature until 10th level (at which point the conjured creatures don't scale well enough to be useful compared to actual high-level spells). There's no lack of identity just a lack of mechanical support for it.

Sorcerers lack a meaningful throughline - I think there should be a dragon magic class, but all the other sorcerer subclasses could just as easily fit in another class, usually warlock. And most would work better as warlocks anyways.

 

[R_J_K75]

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?

I say all of them are pigeonholed and limiting to players, so personally if it were up to me, I'd get rid of classes completely in 5E D&D completely. I don't see why the current class system couldn't be broken down to its various abilities and the player given "x" number of options they can choose from level to level. Time to sacrifice the sacred cows of the game IMO. I really liked the 2E Skills & Powers and was really disappointed when 3E didn't take that approach.

 

[CleverNickName]

Even funnier, is how both Fighter and Wizard manage to win every single poll. Most popular, least popular, best, worst, most or least powerful, doesn't matter. It's always Fighter and Wizard at the top.

...I stand corrected.

 

[Undrave]

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.

I tried to make a Rogue-is Trickery Cleric, more than once, and failed everytime. Trickery is like the worst domain and Clerics really only have two flavours (Laser and Melee), the domains are basically garnish.

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.

Same here. I'm playing a class-based game because I like classes and I'd rather have more than less. If you don't like classes play a point buy game.

From where I sit, the "most identity" would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) "generic" class story. e.g. The Fighter fights! The Mage uses spells! They can incorporate the widest number of possible characters.... somehow the MOST potential for the most number of possible characters, does NOT equal "most identity?!"

That's breadth, people want depth. If you can't explain your class without mechanics or beyond 'he's good at one of the basic blocks of the game' that's not more identity, it's being a blank page. The Fighter being 'the guy who is good at weapons' is used as an excuse to deny it anything cool because it would make this blank page less blank.

Oh, right. I forget if one isn't "unique" then they can't possibly have an identity. Yes, yes. Everyone is "special." All tiktok and youtube channels are created equal/matter.

oh my god don't do "Kids these days!" it's embarrassing.

We're talking about classes in a game here, classes that are presented as an equal opportunity to each other. People want those options to MATTER and stand out from each other.

 

[CleverNickName]

oh my god don't do "Kids these days!" it's embarrassing.

I might borrow this for the "DMG 20240 Greyhawk" thread.

 

[Undrave]

I might borrow this for the "DMG 2024 Greyhawk" thread.

Be my guest!

 

[Undrave]

Upon further reflection, I don't mind that classes like fighter and wizard have fairly thin identity as classes - the subclasses can make up for that by adding identity and flavor at that level. After all, you're not meant to play the class without a subclass.

Fighters suffer a bit from a first impression problem: the fighter subclasses in the PHB don't do a good job filling in the identity, but the post-core subclasses all offer excellent examples of how to do that. Even the Arcane Archer doesn't lack for identity or flavor; it's just weak so the mechanics don't support the fantasy. The most popular third-party subclasses in the game (according to my experience: gunslinger and echo knight) also overflow with flavor. But the core options? Not so much.

If the base fighter is white bread, the Champion is buttered toast or maybe a grilled cheese. But that's fine - there's a taste even if it isn't complex. The Eldritch Knight is just a really clunky, unintuitive and self-hampered attempt at something classic. The Rune Knight does a vastly better job at getting the idea across and making it playable. The Battlemaster is just more chassis with no body - even more tools to build to the flavor you bring from something else. You can build a samurai or cavalier or gladiator or gunslinger with a battlemaster, but if you've selected you class, subclass, and fighting style, you shouldn't to go get the spice from somewhere else.

If the Rune Knight and Samurai were core and the Eldritch Knight and swordsage Battlemaster came later, I think the fighter would be polling a lot better.

That's a very good point. I voted for Fighter but it also doesn't mean I ACTUALLY want it remove, mind you.

Maybe these base class with strong subclass flavour would work better if they got subclass earlier? If the Wizard, Fighter, Rogue and Cleric all got their subclass at first level, singling them as the 'basic classes with strong subclass flavour' I think it would work pretty well, and then the other classes would get their later because they have a stronger core identity.

The wizard's issue isn't really a lack of flavor (I changed my vote) - even the basic wizard has an identity of being a bookish, skill-based magic user (rather than faithful or charming or bound to something - a wizard is pure skill) and the subclasses often add a lot of extra identity on top

At the same time I feel like you can do a bookish magic user with pretty much any of the caster. It's just a personality trait. And the subclass budget is too long IMO because the Wizard gets too much stuff from the base class. It's why I prefer the main class to give LESS spells per level and have the subclass give more to personalized extras.

I also think not all magic school work as a subclass.