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

[DEFCON 1]

You know that if something is innate, it wasn't acquired, do you?

Then why are there different subclasses?

If a Storm Sorcerer did not acquire its magic via storms somehow, then why are they Storm Sorcerers? Even if it was actually an ancestor who had some connection to storms who then passed that connection through their descendants, the Storm Sorcerer acquired their innate magic through bloodline or evolution.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

• Fighter needs to split into two classes: heavy infantry "knight" versus mobile light infantry "skirmisher".

Yes!!! I've been thinking this for ages. Maybe even splitting into three classes, with the support based warlord being one.

Fighter has absolutely no identity at all. It's the equivalent to having a simple 'magic user' class. Splitting fighter into warlord, knight, and skirmisher would allow each aspect of combat to get its own niche and mechanics.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yes!!! I've been thinking this for ages. Maybe even splitting into three classes, with the support based warlord being one.

Fighter has absolutely no identity at all. It's the equivalent to having a simple 'magic user' class. Splitting fighter into warlord, knight, and skirmisher would allow each aspect of combat to get its own niche and mechanics.

i don't think the fighter really lacks an identity, it's just expected to facilitate too many different variations of that identity so it sort of muddies the water,

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wizard and fighter have zero identity. They are modes of interaction, not a specific set of concepts. One is 'spells', the other is 'weapons' and both are better refined and deployed by other classes (like the inborn caster sorcerer or mobility combatant rogue, or nature wizard but also archer ranger) while also blocking other, better classes from coming into being because they're just stuck in that position with a resin of niche protection and tradition.

People say the ranger has no identity, which is untrue: it has a half dozen or more, all interfering with each other.

 

[KYRON45]

Isn't the point of an RPG for us to give the classes identity?

 

[Clint_L]

If we're defining "identity" to equal "more specific," which it seems we are, then it follows that classes with strong identity are more akin to sub-classes. A paladin is a fighter+. A sorcerer is a wizard+. And so on.

But in reality, none of my players struggle with the concept of "fighter." And the interesting parts of their character's identity really come from the story the player tells, not from their choice of class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Isn't the point of an RPG for us to give the classes identity?

It's to give your character identity.

Classes are meant to be a themed set of abilities to help do that for the character but also some people think it's a literal job in-universe and there's barbarian schools that can teach you to be really angry.

 

[Mephista]

You know that if something is innate, it wasn't acquired, do you?

Sorcerer class flat out gives examples of how people gain sorcery without it being form birth. Drink dragon blood, bathe in magic ponds, be hit by magic lightning, survive a slaad or illithid egg inside you.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Wizard and fighter have zero identity. They are modes of interaction, not a specific set of concepts. One is 'spells', the other is 'weapons' and both are better refined and deployed by other classes (like the inborn caster sorcerer or mobility combatant rogue, or nature wizard but also archer ranger) while also blocking other, better classes from coming into being because they're just stuck in that position with a resin of niche protection and tradition.

People say the ranger has no identity, which is untrue: it has a half dozen or more, all interfering with each other.

At least wizard has 'grey haired man with robes, grey beard, staff, and dusty tome' as an identity to rally around. It isn't much, and they're one of the classes I put as lacking the most identity, but it's still more than fighter.

Though I've realised I made an assumption when answering this question. It assumed it was talking about lore identity, and not mechanical identity.

If it was talking about mechanical identity, my answers would have been different.

 

[Tonguez]

By the rules I voted Barbarian, Scorcerer and Wizard.
Reckless Rage could be Fighting style, and neither Magicuser is as interesting as the spells they use.

Going through however I was tempted to drop a lot more and I got down to keeping just
Fighter - (absorbing Barb, Monk, Paladin, Ranger) Bard - (Social/Diplomat class),
Warlock - (absorbing all Spellcasters) and
Artificer - (a builder class is interesting).