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

[EzekielRaiden]

Hands down, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue. In that order.

The Fighter literally does not have identity at all. It is just a random assemblage of "do damage" and "be strong" features. Even calling it "vanilla" would be orders of magnitude more flavor than it possesses. It's not even unflavored water. It's unflavored air.

The Wizard and Rogue at least have some identity, but they utterly fail at actually implementing it. Rogues at least get a lot out of their subclasses. Wizards don't for at least 3/4 of all their subclasses, and the class itself does diddly-squat to depict or even support the theme (hermetic researcher-magician who concocts new spells via study and learning.) When the ENTIRETY of your class's thematics happen off camera, something is desperately, desperately wrong with your class.

Of course, I'm opposed to removing classes, so I dispute the fundamental premise of the thread to begin with. Don't remove any of these classes.

Make them better, for Bahamut's sake!

 

[TwoSix]

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.

To be fair, "never played D&D" doesn't necessarily mean "never exposed to the fantasy genre".

I know lots of people who have never played D&D, but know what a Druid is thanks to World of Warcraft.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have never understood the "Sorcerer has no identity" thing; they've always stood out opposed to wizards for their inborn magic and the bloodlines introduced in 5e only deepened that.

Making metamagic a Sorcerer thing was absolutely genius as well, really driving home the "every fireball cast by a Wizard looks the same, every time a Sorcerer casts fireball it looks different" aspect of the "studied and learned vs instinctual and personal" divide. It only broke gamers' brains because 3.x metamagic felt way too scientific and it became so ubiquitous to Wizards specifically (also, 3.x metamagic was a horrible mechanic).

5e Sorcerers have a balance problem, sure (though still not as bad as the 3.x version), but the one thing they absolutely lack is an identity problem.

I agree, but other people have a different definition of "identity".

I'd go with the Wiktionary definition: "The difference or character that marks off an individual or collective from the rest of the same kind; selfhood; the sense of who something or someone or oneself is, or the recurring characteristics that enable the recognition of such an individual or group by others or themselves."

I think "the rest of the same kind" here means "the characters belonging to other classes".

I don't think any of the 5e classes really lack identity in a significant way. Perhaps Fighter, Wizard and Rogue have a slight deficiency of identity compared to other classes, especially considering that most of them were created as spin-offs of them, and that the Fighter has twice as much of this slight deficiency compared to the other two.

If anything, I think the Fighter's identity could be strengthen by making it a bit more like a martial artist (without any real-world specific regional connotations), with the art of fighting and war a defining purpose in life. Incidentally, many attempts at giving the Fighter more out-of-combat abilities, end up diluting their identity instead of strengthening.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

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.

I don’t disagree with why they are moving away from Paladin = holy warrior… but that’s still the identity most people associate with Paladin.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.



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.

You seem to be confusing historical context for fantasy context. There’s many very popular games that have implemented monk classes as martial artist classes. I’m much less versed in fantasy literature so don’t know how well it applies there as well.

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.

Again, you too focused on history as providing identity. Besides almost no one knows that particular historic tidbit.

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

My argument wasn’t the class needs to represent some historical real world group of people. Not sure why you keep going there.

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

D&d isn’t the only ttrpg. There are also crpgs. There are other mmorpgs. There are other games. Possibly novels as well. Etc.

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.

Most would picture a soldier or mercenary. Kind of timeless in that sense.

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

More than just any ole knight. A holy knight.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Of course, I'm opposed to removing classes, so I dispute the fundamental premise of the thread to begin with. Don't remove any of these classes.

Except the wizard. Probably a lost cause, but not due to a class identity issue.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Except the wizard. Probably a lost cause, but not due to a class identity issue.

It's not Sorcerers of the Coast.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not Sorcerers of the Coast.

Exactly my point.

 

[Undrave]

The Fighter literally does not have identity at all. It is just a random assemblage of "do damage" and "be strong" features. Even calling it "vanilla" would be orders of magnitude more flavor than it possesses. It's not even unflavored water. It's unflavored air.

Gonna quote myself from the 4e Thread.

That's always the problem isn't it? Give something unique to the Fighter and it's always "Why can't MY character have that too? You're just a Fighter!". The Fighter isn't allowed to have anything unique or special (I'm convinced some Feats were at one point Fighters class features, like advanced Fighting styles and stuff) because he's just the Fighter. He's just the guy who swings a sword and has to stay that way because newbies will never want to be anything else than just hitting with a sword.

Fighter is such a generic term that, for (too) many people, it's basically a short hand for 'normal guy', it's practically a non-class, a DEFAULT state of in-universe people who know how to use weapons. Maybe they should just ditch the name Fighter and call him the Weaponmaster maybe people would respect him more?

I've talked about it before, but there is this idea that a level 1 Wizard has studied the arcane for years and is already a specialist, while a level 1 Fighter is just some farm hand who picked up a sword, less than a regular town guard we are generally told are NOT actually Fighters. Or maybe an infantry grunt if you're generous. "You need skills, you need to be special, to be a Wizard. Any peasant can be a Fighter it's that easy.". But the two classes are presented as equal in the book! Being one or the other is the same cost and there is no prerequisite! And moving from level 1 to level 20 is the same ammount of XP for everybody... There is no justification that a level of Wizard is worth more than a level of Fighter in erms of effort OR power.

In short: Let the Fighter have unique abilities!

 

[Undrave]

To be fair, "never played D&D" doesn't necessarily mean "never exposed to the fantasy genre".

I know lots of people who have never played D&D, but know what a Druid is thanks to World of Warcraft.

I knew about Druids from Asterix!

Gimme a golden sickle so I can gather some mistletoe for the magic potion!