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

[Remathilis]

i think this misunderstands/represents what the fighter is doing, the fighter isn't trying to be 30 flavours of ice cream, it's building 30 kinds of dessert off of vanilla ice cream, that means the classic waffle cone, ice cream sandwiches, sundaes, banana splits, served with pies, cakes, brownies, ice cream cakes, and so on and so forth,

it's all vanilla ice cream, but that doesn't mean it's all one thing.

a strong identity can still have a wide array of specific manifestations that fit it.

The implication I was responding to was that uniqueness is a weakness, which is patently absurd. If uniqueness was not highly favored, 4e would have been far more appreciated for making all classes run on the same power schedule.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To be fair.

I would expect one of those 31 flavors to be Vanilla. Maybe 2 with a French Vanilla.

Vanilla, despite the connotation it's gained in the modern era, actually is a flavor though. In fact it's a flavor derived from an orchid we're rapidly driving extinct, so it's actually an exotic delicacy soon to be lost to time.

We're dealing with Cold Milk and Cold Milk w/ Sugar flavor.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The implication I was responding to was that uniqueness is a weakness, which is patently absurd. If uniqueness was not highly favored, 4e would have been far more appreciated for making all classes run on the same power schedule.

The fact it kept dailies at all is one of it's few actual flaws.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Fighter is too broad, to the point there is a common argument Barbarian, Monk, Ranger and Paladin shouldn't exist because they step on Fighter's identity.

Rogue is also too broad, it covers a military scout, a cat buglar, a master tactician, a swashbuckling her and an assassin. The class feels like an umbrella term for things they don't know what to do with.

Wizard is...someone who studies magic. Again, it makes it too broad scope. Sorcerer was born with magic or gained it through some experience. Warlock made a deal. Cleric worships something, Druid is a hippie. These make sense, are easy to uderstand. But any of them could just be studious on top of that.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's an absurd assertion. Narrowness is certainly not a synonym for strong.

As the OP used the term identity, "American" is a rather weak identity because it's almost uselessly broad without additional terms
American what?
American expat?
American resident/citizen?
American voter?
American [made or grown] product?
American city/town?
American country?
American culture?
I've heard that there's even a country in eastern europe (check republic?) that uses the term American fridge to denote the size rather than anything about origin, I wouldn't be surprised if that's not more widespread.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have never introduced myself and an American and had someone wonder what that is.

We make absolutely sure people know what that is.

 

[Raiztt]

Fighter is too broad, to the point there is a common argument Barbarian, Monk, Ranger and Paladin shouldn't exist because they step on Fighter's identity.

Move to three classes:
Fighter
Expert
Magic-User

everything else is a subclass of one of these three.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Move to three classes:
Fighter
Expert
Magic-User

everything else is a subclass of one of these three.

Too Complicated!

Just have the Guy class!

 

[Remathilis]

Move to three classes:
Fighter
Expert
Magic-User

everything else is a subclass of one of these three.

Why bother. Just make them point buy whatever features they want at that point.

 

[Raiztt]

Too Complicated!

Just have the Guy class!

dnd will never go classless