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

[ECMO3]

All the other classes (except maybe ranger) anyone can tell you at a high level what they are without any 5e experience.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think Cleric, Druid, Fighter and Monk would be very different than their stereotypical PC D&D representation.

A Cleric is typically a religious non-combatant, a priest. There were catholic priest Warriors, but most of them would be conflated with Paladins.

A Monk is also a religious person and the vast majority of them both in the east and west are pacifists. Martial Arts has little to do with the Monks most people would understand.

An early Druid is basically an uncivilized Barbarian priest and a late Druid is an entertainer, closer to a Bard. I don't think most would think of any nature connection.

The term Fighter is not one which envisions a character in armor wielding a Great Axe .... or a Crossbow. When you talk about someone being a fighter, usually they think of a hot head or a gang enforcer. While these fit well in the Fighter class, I don't think they are representative of the Archetype.

I think Ranger is more clearly defined than all of these in terms of peoples understanding. In UK and the USA both Rangers refer to soldiers specializing in non-traditional warfare (special operations in modern parlance) and they still exist today. While this does not match the fantasy Ranger, the overall theme is closer than it is with Druid, Cleric and Monk I think. Probably about the same as Bard.

Finally Wizard and Sorcerer do more or less match their IRL stereotype, but I don't think many people could tell you the difference

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.

At least a Paladin would have Armor and be a holy warrior of sorts.

 

[Undrave]

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.

It took until Martial Power 2 to have an Archer Warlord. I think they just didn't know how to make an archer defender but maybe they would have figured it out given time?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Barbarian. Angry fighter when we already have a woodsy fighter.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think Cleric, Druid, Fighter and Monk would be very different than their stereotypical PC D&D representation.

I mean… See most every fantasy rpg ever?

A Monk is also a religious person and the vast majority of them both in the east and west are pacifists. Martial Arts has little to do with the Monks most people would understand.

And yet even outside d&d, fantasy monk heroes are almost always associated with martial arts.

An early Druid is basically an uncivilized Barbarian priest and a late Druid is an entertainer, closer to a Bard. I don't think most would think of any nature connection.

wait, aren’t we talking about current 5e classes. Not sure why you talking early druids.

And everyone that plays RPGs know Druid is almost always a nature class.

The term Fighter is not one which envisions a character in armor wielding a Great Axe .... or a Crossbow.

wielding a different weapon isn’t an identity

When you talk about someone being a fighter, usually they think of a hot head or a gang enforcer. While these fit well in the Fighter class, I don't think they are representative of the Archetype.

Ummm, no. Soldier and mercenary and knight are the first thing that comes to mind when most people hear medieval fighter.

I think Ranger is more clearly defined than all of these in terms of peoples understanding. In UK and the USA both Rangers refer to soldiers specializing in non-traditional warfare (special operations in modern parlance) and they still exist today. While this does not match the fantasy Ranger, the overall

Basically not conceptually similar to medieval fantasy rangers at all. Those guys would be medical fantasy fighters. (High level ones).

At least a Paladin would have Armor and be a holy warrior of sorts.

Yea. Paladin = holy warrior. But 5e Paladin does not. Thus the identity problem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm pretty happy that Paladin = Champion of a Cause won.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm pretty happy that Paladin = Champion of a Cause won.

Won what?

 

[Tonguez]

The term Fighter is not one which envisions a character in armor wielding a Great Axe .... or a Crossbow. When you talk about someone being a fighter, usually they think of a hot head or a gang enforcer. While these fit well in the Fighter class, I don't think they are representative of the Archetype.

While I'd tend to use the word Warrior more natively, if I was roleplaying a Fantasy type War Leader and was challenged to send out my best "Fighter" - it certainly wouldnt be a "hot header gang enforcer". If its vaguely medieval I'm going to be looking at a large armoured fighter, armed with either sword or axe. Someone like the Mountain from Game of Thrones would fit or the Hound or Jon Snow or any one of the smaller more agile swordsmen.

Archilles in the Troy movie would be a champion Fighter, Bahubaali in his movie too and Boromir in LotR. even in a Modern setting I'm looking at examples like John Matrix or Rambo or even Rocky as fighters long before I'm considering a gang enforcer (Rogue: Thug subclass?)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Won what?

Won by being the actual paladin in the game ahead of Lawful Good Killjoy.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean… See most every fantasy rpg ever?

Yeah, but I thought your point was ask anyone who has never played D&D about a Wizard or Sorcerer ...

If you ask people who have never played D&D about a Cleric, Monk or Druid you are going to get Pope Francis, Saint Benedict and crazy Barbarians participating in human sacrifice during the Roman era.

And yet even outside d&d, fantasy monk heroes are almost always associated with martial arts.

No, they are almost never associated with Martial Arts.

Benedictians, Fransiscans, Shaolin, Bhikku, Friar Tuck (who was a fat beer drinker).

This is like saying nuns are associated with martial arts as nuns are the females in the Monastic orders.

The only Monks associated with Martial Arts are Bushido and I don't think many people think of them when you ask "what is a Monk".

Heck most Chinese and Indians, who together compose almost half the world population, probably assume you mean some of the Uygers or people in Tibet.

wait, aren’t we talking about current 5e classes. Not sure why you talking early druids.

It has nothing to do with D&D versions. Early as in during Roman times when Druids were Barbarians and Caesar wrote about them (which is where most of the history comes from) vs late as in the late middle Ages after their tribes had been eradicated by the English and those remaining were an ethnic group integrated into English culture and acting as primarily as jesters.

None of the D&D Druids are even remotely representative of actual Druids.

And everyone that plays RPGs know Druid is almost always a nature class.

But the people we are talking about are people who do not play RPGs right?

wielding a different weapon isn’t an identity

Ummm, no. Soldier and mercenary and knight are the first thing that comes to mind when most people hear medieval fighter.

Fighter is not meaningful at all in modern society. If you ask someone what a fighter is, they are going to think you are talking about a fast, maneuverable aircraft used to shoot down other aircraft.

There is no thing defined as a medieval fighter IRL. I suppose that might come to mind because you are talking about someone who fights, but equally if you said "Armor-wearer" those things would come to mind too, and if you took out the Medieval conteext and just asked a random person on the street what a fighter is, I don't think a Knight is what would come to mind at all. If you specify a person they will think someone who fights - a gang member or a Boxer or perhaps an MMA fighter.

If you asked them what a Paladin was, it is in fact a Knight that would come to mind.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I mean… See most every fantasy rpg ever?

In most fantasy RPGs clerics wear cloth armour and use their magic as their primary approach. Closer to a Divine Soul Sorcerer or sometimes a Celestial Warlock than they are to a D&D cleric.

Yea. Paladin = holy warrior. But 5e Paladin does not. Thus the identity problem.

The identity problem is that in D&D Cleric = holy warrior. Historically, especially pre-4e, wearing heavy armour. In pre-4e D&D Paladins weren't just "holy warriors" (as mentioned that was clerics), they were humourless prigs who couldn't make mistakes or even fall for tricks lest they either lose all their powers or fall like Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader.

But because the Cleric is squatting on the holy warrior spot the Paladin has to be something else, and preferably something that doesn't lead to antisocial behaviour. And late 4e/5e picked a pretty good backup choice.