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

[MichaelSomething]

I predict lots of people confusing "niche" with "identity" in the next few threads...

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.

Can we define "identity."

What exactly are you looking for??

 

[Yaarel]

Can we define "identity."

Based on the popular complaint against Fighter, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Ranger, the term "identity" seems to mean a unifying salient concept.

The concept needs to stand up on its own for the base class, as well as include meaningful variations to fill out at least four salient subclasses.

The identity needs to come with potent low tier applications as well as potent high tier applications.

 

[mellored]

Sorcerer + Wizard -> Mage
Cleric + Druid -> Priest
Barbarian + Ranger -> Primal (?)

Not all Clerics are "priests".

The historical Druid is priestly, but the D&D Druid is moreso shamanic.

Sorcerer + Wizard = Arcanist
Cleric + Druid - Wild Shape = Channeler
Ranger + Barbarian + Wild Shape = Wilding

 

[Mecheon]

Sorcerer + Wizard = Arcanist
Cleric + Druid - Wild Shape = Channeler
Ranger + Barbarian + Wild Shape = Wilding

I'd argue these aren't helping anything and worsening things. The more generic classes are the ones being accused of having no identity, so that's what should be avoided. Sorcerer's the one that isn't generic, but I'd argue sorcerer's issue is not having a mechanical identity, as opposed to a story identity

Plus, well, thanks to other games out there, druids and shapeshifting are linked and you cannot drag them apart this late into things

 

[Clint_L]

The fighter's role in the party.

Does every thread have to be about this?

 

[ECMO3]

I can imagine a Ranger subclass under both Fighter and Rogue.
Same for the Bard.

I can imagine a fighter being a subclass of Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin and Wizard.

 

[Clint_L]

I can imagine a fighter being a subclass of Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin and Wizard.

I can imagine anything, but for me the fighter is a baseline class. Though wizard is a bit of a stretch in either direction, unless you throw the history of D&D out.

 

[ECMO3]

The more generic classes are the ones being accused of having no identity, so that's what should be avoided.

The more generic classes are the ones that are most fun as you can make them into what you want.

I want to play a character, not a stereotype. A front line melee Wizard is just plain cool. So is a controller Ranger who rarely takes the attack action. Both of these are easily doable specifically because the mechanics do not tie those classes to one identity.

 

[ECMO3]

I can imagine anything, but for me the fighter is a baseline class. Though wizard is a bit of a stretch in either direction, unless you throw the history of D&D out.

I am talking about from an identity POV. The Wizard (with a Bladesinger subclass) would cover one stereotype, other classes would cover another.

If you talk about it from a history point of view the only classes that can be sacrificed are Sorcerer, Artificer, Warlock and MAYBE Barbarian. Everything else is pretty entrenched historically and date back to the 1970s.

 

[Mecheon]

The more generic classes are the ones that are most fun as you can make them into what you want.

I want to play a character, not a stereotype. A front line melee Wizard is just plain cool. So is a controller Ranger who rarely takes the attack action. Both of these are easily doable specifically because the mechanics do not tie those classes to one identity.

They're also the ones being absoluetly demolished in this poll on having no identity, that's the thing.

You can certainly take them and do what you want and sure, fit a square peg into a round hole, but wouldn't a purpuse built, mechanically supported Swordmage also do that? Just, this way you avoid the Bladesinger's issues of "Well, I'm a stupid good tank but my gameplay doesn't support being a magic sword wielder, just a magic blaster"