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

[CreamCloud0]

Question. If I have two classes A and B, and B is the same as A but replaces some features of A with its own, and is clearly derivative of B in all other senses, which class has less identity? B? Or A?

a statue is entirely derivative of a block of stone but that doesn't mean the stone block has more of an identity than the statue.

and if the sorcerer came first wouldn't we be saying 'oh the wizard just trades metamagic and their bloodline for a spellbook and a bigger spell list, how derivitive is the wizard from the real arcane caster who has magic surging in their blood?'

 

[Mephista]

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.

Okay, I'm not going to touch the class identity war thing, but....

SORCERER IS NOT BLOODLINES!!!!!! Dragon sorcerer was bloodlines, but wild magic, storm sorcery, clockwork, aberrant mind, divine soul, moon magic, and shadow magic were NEVER bloodlines.

Pathfinder was the one that went all in with sorcerer=bloodlines. D&D has not done so. There's the option that SOME sorcerers claim decent from dragons, but that was never baked in, only a suggestion, even back when sorcerer first debuted in 3e. Other options included being mentored by a dragon or bathing in dragon blood. Same thing in 4e (which even had an Elementalist name later in the edition) and 5e (more like mutants exposed to energy to make you sensitive to its manipulation).

The D&D sorcerer is defined by specializing in tapping into certain types of magical planes for an elemental mage archetype. So you end up with classic elemental magic of fire, lightning, ice, etc (dragon, storm), positive energy (divine soul), necrotic energy (shadow), far realm for mind magic (aberrant mind), chaotic planes (wild) and lawful (clockwork). Magic in dragonlance comes from the moons instead of other planes, so we have a subclass specifically made to align itself to the dragonlance moons.

Take a look at all the cool crystal magic items made specifically for sorcerer in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. They're all planar-based. You get one from the elemental planes, from the four alignment planes, from the far realm, from feywild and shadowfell. They enhance the ties for being a "fire elemntalist" or "chaos magic user" type stuff.

You want bloodline magic? That's elf, tiefling, gnome, and more. Actual species that start with magic spells as part of their package. That's different from being a sorcerer.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

Getting the necronomicon from someone you sold your soul to is not the same as studying the mystic arts to understand the nature of the universe.

Sure, so I'd play a Lore Bard or an Arcane Domain Cleric for that.

I am not someone who want's the Wizard removed, despite it being my least favorite class. But it is a really bad class who's need for having a massive spell list that hogs so many spells for itself is so paramount that they have no other interesting or unique base class features, and most of their subclasses have maybe one feature that is truly useful or mechanically interesting.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I see few votes for warlock, but based on the threads here, warlock fans actively resist the idea that RAW class identity is something that should impact their game. ("Wait, my patron might want something from my warlock? MY DM IS A SOCIOPATH!") So, effectively, I'd say warlocks don't have much identity beyond "the character with eldritch blast, unless they're a hexblade."

As a warlock main myself, I find that a lot of dms don't know how to balance it. If the patron is demanding something new form me every couple of turns in combat, or even just every session, they become more tiresome than fun. No one enjoys being micromanaged.

I want my villain to be Voldemort, not Umbridge.

I'm also not sure removing classes based on them being too generic would create a satisfying game. ("Sorry, you can't just be a guy who's good with a sword. Can you at least use a food-themed weapon or something instead?")

I voted fighter, but I would much rather there be three or more fighter classes than zero.

 

[mellored]

My vote was going to be for Sorcerer but it's not on the list. Which makes sense, considering how little of an identity it has.

Fixed.

 

[Reynard]

To bad only 3 choices were allowed. A lot of 5E classes can get dumped by expanding the base classes with talent trees etc.

But mostly the sorcerer should go.

 

[TwoSix]

I see few votes for warlock, but based on the threads here, warlock fans actively resist the idea that RAW class identity is something that should impact their game. ("Wait, my patron might want something from my warlock? MY DM IS A SOCIOPATH!") So, effectively, I'd say warlocks don't have much identity beyond "the character with eldritch blast, unless they're a hexblade."

Two separate things. I think class flavor is strongly malleable, and classes can be used to make characters of familiar archetypes AND characters that wildly veer from the standard.

But that doesn't mean I can't also recognize when a class is filled with strong, recognizable tropes and archetypes.

If I didn't recognize class identity, it wouldn't be nearly as much as fun to tweak it or shatter it, depending on the character.

 

[Reynard]

Also, the Paladin is either a holy fighter or a fighty cleric.

 

[Gradine]

I wouldn't say waiting for the player to say "ooo spellbook! I might want to copy it, what spells are in that spellbook!" amounts to playing "differently".

It's not just about copying spells in a spellbook. It's about having the right spell for the right moment prepared at the right time. It's about planning ahead, thinking about the obstacles one might face and setting up what they need to do it. In other words, they're nerd casters.

Sorcerers are the caster jocks. They've only got a few tricks but they're real good at them and they've even learned how to manipulate them more flexible than their limited spell pool would otherwise leave them. They're the "when all you have is a hammer" caster.

At the risk of straining for a metaphor, it is like saying why should Batman exist when we already have a perfectly fine Superhero in Superman, what's even the difference anyway.

Playing them mechanically the exact same way is failure of imagination with the player, not the design of the class.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean, the Warlock gets the option of a magical tome as well. Could very easily make the wizard a warlock subclass that favors using the Pact of the Tome like how Hexblade favors Pact of the Blade.

The spellbook is a neutral mechanic.


I prefer to organize classes by theme, rather than by mechanics.

For example the Warlock has great mechanics, that can work well for several classes with different themes: Psion, Swordmage, even Warlord.