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

[MGibster]

I hate to beat up on the Sorcerer, mainly because they're not as big a nerd as the Wizard, but I'm going to pick it. It's just another arcane caster so far as I'm concerned. But even then, it still has an identity and it's identity is "I'm not a nerd Wizard. I go out on dates rather than spend time poring over eldritch tomes and my fireballs are still hella-bitchin'."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I hate to beat up on the Sorcerer, mainly because they're not as big a nerd as the Wizard, but I'm going to pick it. It's just another arcane caster so far as I'm concerned. But even then, it still has an identity and it's identity is "I'm not a nerd Wizard. I go out on dates rather than spend time poring over eldritch tomes and my fireballs are still hella-bitchin'."

 

[ECMO3]

If I have 31 different types of ice cream and they all taste like vanilla, I don't have 31 unique flavors, I have 1 flavor trying to be 31.

Yes but if you did that Ice Cream would have a much stronger identity than it does with 31 different flavors. Having a weaker identity is a good thing.

 

[ECMO3]

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."

This is really what makes the fighter the most popular and arguably the best class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What about Gals?

That would hurt my verisimilitude.

 

[ECMO3]

What really strikes me about reading a lot of posts here is that many people seem to care about labels. That is not right or wrong but it is more persistent than I thought (at least on this message board it is).

When I am thinking up a character concept I am thinking about what I want that character to do, how I want them to act, what I want them to be good at, how I want them to solve problems, how I want them to fight, what their personality is. Then I pick a collection of race, classes, feats etc that meet or most closely approximate that character design goal. I have no care at all whether that Character is called a "Fighter" or a "Rouge" or a "Warlock-Monk-Artificer-Barbarian" as long as it mechanically supports the thematics and play style I want to use in the particular adventure. Class is just one of many tools (arguably the most important tool) used to build the character with the mechanics that lends itself to how I want to play that character.

In this respect class identity is meaningless unless it is so strong that it limits build options and in that respect a weaker identity which affords more diversity in build is better IMO.

 

[CreamCloud0]

how many 'wizards' in fiction begin with the sorcerer's identity of having the innate spark of magic?

 

[pawsplay]

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.

So let's use the category American vegan. I would argue that the American identity is strong enough that people will "American vegan" has some level of tension with a general picture of an American. Is American vegan a strong category? Do people have a strong impression of what an American vegan is like? If I go to Japan and ask someone, "What do you think of American vegans?", what kind of response am I going to get? What happens if I ask, "What do you think of Americans?"

Let's say I go to Kenya, and I ask, "What is your impression of American dentists who like to ski?"

 

[tetrasodium]

So let's use the category American vegan. I would argue that the American identity is strong enough that people will "American vegan" has some level of tension with a general picture of an American. Is American vegan a strong category? Do people have a strong impression of what an American vegan is like? If I go to Japan and ask someone, "What do you think of American vegans?", what kind of response am I going to get? What happens if I ask, "What do you think of Americans?"

Let's say I go to Kenya, and I ask, "What is your impression of American dentists who like to ski?"

You don't even need to ask people in different countries, you could ask those no context questions to Americans and almost cerytainly get the same response. I would expect the response to be them making an effort to politely excuse themselves & safely back themselves away from the maybe dangerous person asking for their opinion on random Americans without a conversation that gives the question context or a reason to exist.

 

[Mecheon]

Oh? Can a Paladin fit in everyone? Can a warlock? Can a druid?

Seems like, if you require "uniqueness" to feel like there's an "identity" (and I wholeheartedly disagree/refuse to accept that premise), Fighter and Wizard "fitting in everyone" meets that criteria.

Just, going to remind you, we're talking about Class Identity in this topic. How distinct each class is

So, yeah, they can't fit in everywhere. But.... That's good? Like, that's specifically what the thread is asking? "Is this class specific enough it has its own tropes, own ideas, own stance". That's identity

Pretty sure a warlock or druid or sorcerer, for that matter, would disagree that using magic isn't a crucial part of (or even the base necessity for) their identity (whatever level/degree of identity that may be).

A warlock uses magic because they've cut a deal with someone else. A druid uses magic because they follow the old ways of nature. A sorcerer uses magic because they are born to wield magic, due to their history

They all use magic Because of something, not just using magic, and those elements build an identity to that class. How oother folks will feel about them, how their magic will be used, what other people doing similar magic may do.

So, irrelevant to this discussion of D&D classes, then?

How the wider market presents its classes in games is certainly relevant to talking about how D&D does it, even if we go beyond Pathfinder to "Its high point caused an actual visible blip on all TTRPG sales" giant World of Warcraft

So doing the damage, defending your companions, leading the charge (in many cases), giving as good as you get, taking more hits than others, and doing it all WITHOUT magical powers or invoked deities or loosing your mind with rage or mystical martial arts... Just your weapons of choice, your brawn (and possibly a bit of brain/tactics/"strategery"), your improving skill/experiences in battle....none of that "means something" as far as being a fighter?

That's not "unique" because other classes in the game engage in combat also?

I really don't have a response to this...that wouldn't get me in trouble, I think. So I'll just keep my thoughts here to myself.

I mean, that's one way you can build a fighter but, you said it up thread. Fighters aren't just that. So they aren't that identity because, they can be something completely different.

Y'see the problem? Fighters being the everyman robs them of an identity their own. And its absolutely easy to give them one, you've put it to paper, but then along comes "Well, we've gone and shoved this trope into the Fighter class now" and that identity is ruined again, due to it having to play as the holding bag for being generic. 5E ruins that identity you've given it by going "Well, here's the Arcane Archer, and its a Fighter now", completely destroying the defending your companions, leading the charge, and not using magical powers all in one fell swoop

Fighters and their subclasses should be recognisable as a Fighter, not "Huh that's basically my World of Warcraft hunter, thought that'd make more sense as a Ranger". You couldn't put a Marksman Hunter under World of Warcraft's Warrior, the closest equivilent to Fighter, but D&D basically lets it happen