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

[Undrave]

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

Caster on caster violence is so disappointing ...

 

[CreamCloud0]

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

unsurprisingly "sorcerer but nerd" is just a sorcerer subclass rather than an unique class identity.

 

[tetrasodium]

unsurprisingly "sorcerer but nerd" is just a sorcerer subclass rather than an unique class identity.

Your rephrasing falls flat because of the source for "wizard but hot". I put "wizard but hot" in quotes because of how many times Crawford has said it over the years.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

Wizard but hot, without the dross of Vancian Casting, and with an actual concept the past two editions before 5e decided they were just kids living under the power lines.

Oh, and without the fandom that tries to eat everyone else's lunch.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Your rephrasing falls flat because of the source for "wizard but hot". I put "wizard but hot" in quotes because of how many times Crawford has said it over the years.

Which is probably why Crawford shouldn't have been allowed around either.

don't let designers design things they have a mad on for one way or the other. Do we not remember 3e's Savage Species?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

my vote is whatever OP's favorite class is

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sorcerer doesn't really have any identifying mechanics (maybe metamagic - but that's too flexible and generic). It's the baseline arcanist.

On the other hand Wild Sorcerer has identifying mechanics. So does Aberrant Mind Sorcerer. So does Draconic Sorceror. So does Divine Soul Sorcerer.

I could go on. But the wizard identifying mechanics (Int, Spellbooks, and rituals from books not prepared) are roughly equivalent to sorcerer subclass identifying mechanics - and wizard subclasses are almost always either bland or encouraged specialisation, conflicting with the class mechanics.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

I'm one of the people who hated the lack of Archer Fighters. There are two reasons:
It was the most extreme example of Fighter Erosion (where they just cut off parts of what could be the fighter to give it to another class) we had ever had.
Every other Martial Power Source using class had a decent ranged and melee builds. Rogue, Ranger and Warlord all had actual powers to use a bow and a sword and not just basic attacks.

Consider it this way: If the Ranger couldn't use melee weapons, people would have rioted, but somehow it was ok to take bows away from a Fighter?

 

[MoonSong]

Your rephrasing falls flat because of the source for "wizard but hot". I put "wizard but hot" in quotes because of how many times Crawford has said it over the years.

Crawford's opinion is only worth for new version onward. He wasn't there twenty or so years ago when they designed the original class, and he wasn't the lead designer when 5e was first made ten years ago. He doesn't even have monopoly over current sorcerer onward, because there is also Pathfinder out there -and they have greatly shaped the way sorcerer is perceived-, and the distinction has already permeated pop culture in general.

 

[tetrasodium]

Crawford's opinion is only worth for new version onward. He wasn't there twenty or so years ago when they designed the original class, and he wasn't the lead designer when 5e was first made ten years ago. He doesn't even have monopoly over current sorcerer onward, because there is also Pathfinder out there -and they have greatly shaped the way sorcerer is perceived-, and the distinction has already permeated pop culture in general.

The original 3.5 sorcerer class was something that had an identity distinct from the 3.5 wizard, that's not what we have in 5e. What exists as a sorcerer in 5e is something that depends almost entirely on the identity of a different class. Just like with the fighter tangent that has been running for a while now I think a lot of these problems were created by efforts to simplify & streamline away or "optional(ize)" so many parts of the game