• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Which classes have the least identity?

  • Artificer

    Votes: 23 14.6%
  • Barbarian

    Votes: 17 10.8%
  • Bard

    Votes: 12 7.6%
  • Cleric

    Votes: 14 8.9%
  • Druid

    Votes: 4 2.5%
  • Fighter

    Votes: 59 37.6%
  • Monk

    Votes: 17 10.8%
  • Paladin

    Votes: 5 3.2%
  • Ranger

    Votes: 39 24.8%
  • Rogue

    Votes: 15 9.6%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 19 12.1%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 36 22.9%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 69 43.9%


log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

🇮🇱He-Mage
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.
 


Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
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

Legend
The fighter's role in the party.
b7fc83549d05dbb85568d8fe22f6d22a.jpg
Does every thread have to be about this?
 



ECMO3

Hero
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

Hero
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

Sacabambaspis
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"
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top