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

[Mephista]

Funny how much sorcerer hate there is in the comments yet wizard has twice the votes.

This comment certainly hasn't aged well.

 

[Mephista]

man, we have way too many semantic arguments what is this philosophy?
in less joking words mechanical and thematic identities are different and need different words so we do not talk around each other.

"Class fantasy" is the most commonly used phrase for thematic identity, I found. Mechanical identity seems to be "fighting style" with a bit of exploration and social skill use mixed in.

The problem with fighting style is that's a mechanic too, so it doesn't quite work.

 

[Undrave]

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).

In the thread talking about 4e we brought up the 'Archer Fighter' problem where people wanted to play a FIGHTER that did archery, but the 4e Fighter wasn't designed for it and only had it as a backup option. To make an archer you were supposed to use the Ranger (who could easily NOT pick Nature and had no specific class features related to stuff like Favored Enemy/Terrain). But people wanted a character sheet with FIGHTER written at the top.

The 4e Fighter had a strong mechanical identity and played in a very specific way and was very good at it. I really never got how THAT guy was supposed to be the same as the Archer people wanted? I was playing Final Fantasy Tactics Advance at the time and in that game the Soldier and the Archer were different jobs and that made sense to me.(The basic jobs available to Humans in that game were Soldier, Thief, Archer, White Mage and Black Mage, btw)

What made them the same class to some people besides 'Good at weapon'? The entire Martial power source was the old Fighter, basically... but again, labels.

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.

We have a fairly similar way to build characters except I usually just think ‘that mechanic looks neat, I want to try it.” I’ve had a few concept first characters as well but they often don’t end up working out...

 

[Yaarel]

In the thread talking about 4e we brought up the 'Archer Fighter' problem where people wanted to play a FIGHTER that did archery, but the 4e Fighter wasn't designed for it and only had it as a backup option. To make an archer you were supposed to use the Ranger (who could easily NOT pick Nature and had no specific class features related to stuff like Favored Enemy/Terrain). But people wanted a character sheet with FIGHTER written at the top.

The 4e Fighter had a strong mechanical identity and played in a very specific way and was very good at it. I really never got how THAT guy was supposed to be the same as the Archer people wanted? I was playing Final Fantasy Tactics Advance at the time and in that game the Soldier and the Archer were different jobs and that made sense to me.(The basic jobs available to Humans in that game were Soldier, Thief, Archer, White Mage and Black Mage, btw)

What made them the same class to some people besides 'Good at weapon'? The entire Martial power source was the old Fighter, basically... but again, labels.

There can almost be a "Fighter power source".

Then Knight, Skirmisher, Archer, Rogue, and Warlord all use the Fighter power source.

(Heavy infantry, light infantry, artillery, stealth, and officer.)

 

[Undrave]

There can almost be a "Fighter power source".

Then Knight, Skirmisher, Archer, Rogue, and Warlord all use the Fighter power source.

(Heavy infantry, light infantry, artillery, stealth, and officer.)

You could have the classes organized in chapters and there could be a Fighter chapter.

 

[FrogReaver]

I voted based on thematic identity. Ranger was my number 1 choice. Too much disagreement about what a ranger is/should be for it to have a strong identity.

I also voted Paladin. All the other classes (except maybe ranger) anyone can tell you at a high level what they are without any 5e experience. If I asked anyone outside 5e what a fantasy Paladin is their description isn’t going to be keeper of some random oath. Thus, a weak thematic identity.

 

[MoonSong]

This comment certainly hasn't aged well.

Fair...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Off the top of my head:

1. Wizard. The problem with the wizard isn't that they have no identity - it's that their identity as "the bookish flexible arcane casters" is perfect for a sorcerer subclass. The Sorcerer is the arcane caster who gets their magic from X - where X is [thing]. Ironic as the sorcerer was created to be a sockpuppet for the wizard to get more spells, but the sorcerer didn't come into their own until 4e brought the subclasses into the game.
2. Cleric. There is an identity there - but it is very hard to create a cleric without reference to direct D&D mechanics that wouldn't be better as a White Robe (Divine Soul Sorcerer), Divine Agent (Celestial Warlock), Holy Warrior (Paladin), or travelling preacher (Bard). Or even a druid. There's nothing really about cleric mechanics that scream "divine caster" other than in a technical sense and they are too one-size-fits-all.
3. Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian needs cleaning up. The rogue is the non-magical class at high levels (no you shouldn't be tanking a dragon as a non-magical person). The barbarian gets most of the empowerment. But where exactly the split lands I'm not sure.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This comment certainly hasn't aged well.

Wizard fans found the thread and saw the sorcerer was being less than curb-stomped.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wizard fans found the thread and saw the sorcerer was being less than curb-stomped.

If the sorcerer had any notably identifying mechanics you could have expounded about those instead of whatever this complaint is . unsurprisingly "wizard but hot" is just a wizard subclass rather than a unique class identity