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

[Kobold Avenger]

Fighter has 2 subclasses, where the identity is just "this one is simple mechanics" and another that's "this one is complex mechanics". The 2014 PHB hasn't done a good job on stating the fluff difference between Champion and Battlemaster, other than perhaps the Battlemaster trained at a Fighter school.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Oh, I certainly understand that it's a situation that, with a bad DM, can be a real problem. But it's led to a situation where many players want everyone to actively ignore what's in the rulebook, rather than WotC or the community coming up with standards to make it work better.

Clerics, for instance, could theoretically have the same issues, but it's been decades since many people have complained about that, because everyone has figured out that "the cleric's god is a demanding jerk" can a bummer for everyone but presumably the DM.

I mean, if you check the actual text, patrons don't want much, and in older editions they didn't want anything at all, and there is no rule that says a Patron can enforce it's will on the warlock through any means.

But while the extremes are uncommon, they're not totally strawmen. Some players just want to mechanics because sorcerers are way too fiddly for "a guy who can shoot lasers" and clerics don't give you enough flexibility to build your own concept. Some dms think evil must be a jerk and that "make a will save or attack your own party" is a fun thing to do in every encounter (both of these I've experienced in real life, only one is inherently annoying.)

 

[Oofta]

That's why I voted for fighters, it's too broad of a concept to say they have a particularly strong identity, as opposed to, say, paladins.

I mean, in your own description you say "without necessarily relying". If it had a strong identity, you wouldn't need the "necessarily" caveat. Some fighters (EKs, Psi Knight, Rune Knight) DO rely on supernatural powers, other don't. The bulk of fighter's flavor comes from its subclass, not the actual class.

It doesn't lack any identity, but it's certainly the weakest out of the core classes.

I would say that a fighter is what we would think of as a mundane ordinary world fighter put in a fantasy world. That, and they are iconic to D&D having always been there.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think the Hound or Brienne of Tarth would be any less memorable if there were Targaryeans breathing fire. (They might have lasted fewer episodes, though.)

When your allies are Gods, swinging your sword an extra time is child's play. The game needs more blood hunters and less champions.

That said, I'm willing to extend the olive branch and bring back the cavalier as the non-divine knight powered by honor and oath. Just kill the boring "I hit" class.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

It's mostly fluff about where you get your book. If we took the wizard, warlock, and sorcerer and boiled them down to a "mage," then it's not like these differences would matter that much. For example, in the Cypher System, you can be a "mage," and the class entry just flat out asks "where did you get your magic powers?" The idea that there is a difference is mostly a D&Dism that came about in 3e when WotC was experimenting with alternative casting mechanics.

 

[Remathilis]

the existence of those things doesn't mean fighters have any less of an identity though.

Tell me the story of the fighter without relying on background or subclass.

 

[Oofta]

Tell me the story of the fighter without relying on background or subclass.

He's the guy that relies on physical prowess and training in weapons, whether that be the tank in armor or the nimble guy that stabs you three times before you notice. He's the closest equivalent to a mundane mortal trying to survive that we have. It's a broad concept, but it's still an identity.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I mean, if you check the actual text, patrons don't want much, and in older editions they didn't want anything at all, and there is no rule that says a Patron can enforce it's will on the warlock through any means.

But they don't want nothing, which is what a lot of players here have loudly voiced should be the default expectation.

Sworn and Beholden

A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.

The fifth paragraph of the warlock description explicitly says that performing some sort of deeds for their patron is the "cost" of the warlock's abilities.

That there's not then rules for how that works doesn't make that paragraph go away. It just sets up the clash of expectations between some players and some DMs.

This was sloppy writing and design by WotC.

The fiction this springs out of -- deals made at the crossroads with the Devil -- all involve a lot of demands on the mortal and a high price to pay if they don't comply. WotC toned that way down, but if their goal was to remove those demands entirely, then this paragraph should have been rewritten as well.

I think warlock players are probably right on this one, but the people who have a different take aren't coming out of nowhere with their opinion. The 2014 PHB explicitly talks about tasks and services.

Hopefully the 2024 PHB will do better in this regard.

But while the extremes are uncommon, they're not totally strawmen.

I didn't mean to suggest they were. With maybe one exception on these boards, the people who describe -- or are reacting to -- bad DM interactions are clearly telling the truth.

If I were at WotC, one of the many things I would do is make things more explicit in regard to how warlocks work, and similar situations, so that there's no clash of expectations at the table.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

When your allies are Gods, swinging your sword an extra time is child's play. The game needs more blood hunters and less champions.

If one can't model what is probably the most popular fantasy TV show of all time in D&D, I think that's an issue.

Your campaign might need more blood hunters and fewer champions, but the game is bigger than any one campaign world, for better or worse.

 

[MoonSong]

The Wizard's whole identity is only mechanical: Spell book class feature, lots of spells in their progression, and the splitting of spells into 8 arbitrary grouping that don't always make sense at all. The Wizard has no other identity beyond that.

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