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

[TwoSix]

Mage + Priest + Primal -> Guy

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

So umm, what’s the difference?

 

[Remathilis]

Sorry cross posted before reading your response!

No problem. Internet discussion is turn-based combat.

I would also add that the idea of defining your unique character is not always helped by a complicated mechanical push.

When 2e came out, I realized we were playing a lot of those kits/characters without the rules for them. And I frankly thought the over specialization of prestige classes was not a help.

So too many of the niche subclasses
In 5e seem forced and too specific in some ways. They are not archetypal and are almost random to me.

I liked 3e and love 5e so not undue criticism just observations. This thread and question are interesting! But the question is loaded with a lot of assumption.

See that's what I don't want. Right now, if I want to play an arcane caster, I have five possible classes (artificer, bard, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard) and dozens of sub themes (alchemist, archfey pact, diviner, shadow sorcery, etc). What threads like this do is say "but what if we could take all those options you have and condense them down to a handful, then you can pretend your dark magic user is a necromancer, a warlock, a shadow sorcerer, or a witch, despite them all having basically the same abilities and options. It's the "they look the same if you squint" design principle gm that looks good on a forum post and plays bad when all casters play the exact same except for the color of their robes.

 

[Cadence]

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.

Talked me into changing my vote. I was thinking PF when I voted the first time.

 

[steeldragons]

I must say, I'm kind of baffled by the perspective, it seems, was meant by the OP and understood by a good number of posters.

From where I sit, the "most identity" would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) "generic" class story. e.g. The Fighter fights! The Mage uses spells! They can incorporate the widest number of possible characters.... somehow the MOST potential for the most number of possible characters, does NOT equal "most identity?!"

Conversely, the "LEAST identity," what the OP was asking for (and then left out the class that people overwhelmingly agreed would lead), would be those classes that contain within them the LEAST potential. The least number of character types, because it is the most narrowly defined narrative. It could be awash in specialty mechanics, all its own (and most are), but mostly -or the most egregious- still a one-trick pony.

What is the Barbarian without Rage? Fighter in a fur bikini. What is a Paladin without smites? Fighter in some heavy armor. What is a Sorcerer without its innate "magical origin"? Another Mage that uses spells.

The identity of a class has nothing to do with its mechanics. You can have a fantastically complicated, mechanical, class....with a "found in one place in a given fantasy world. There are ten of them across the continent." And they would have, seems to me/from my perspective, LESS identity than a fighter with a sword and spear or a mage with their staff and spellbook, who could be found just about anywhere.

No. I disagree with the bulk of the views presented herein. The Fighter and the Wizard are not close to the "least identity" classes. It seems entirely counterintuitive to how one would view the game and idea of "identity."

 

[Mecheon]

From where I sit, the "most identity" would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) "generic" class story. e.g. The Fighter fights! The Mage uses spells! They can incorporate the widest number of possible characters.... somehow the MOST potential for the most number of possible characters, does NOT equal "most identity?!"

I mean, you said the exact problem. They don't have an identity of their own. They're too spread so their identity has been eroded away to be meaningless. Yeah, they can be anything, but that's not good in this case because in being anything they've completely missed being something more specific with a clear identity. Why does my samurai, my knight and my lancer play so similar when I can boot up other things in this genre and they play absolutely differently? Why are a necromancer and an illusionist bound to the same generic building blocks, barely any differentiation provided for each to go further into their specific thing?

Conversely, the "LEAST identity," what the OP was asking for (and then left out the class that people overwhelmingly agreed would lead), would be those classes that contain within them the LEAST potential. The least number of character types, because it is the most narrowly defined narrative. It could be awash in specialty mechanics, all its own (and most are), but mostly -or the most egregious- still a one-trick pony.

What is the Barbarian without Rage? Fighter in a fur bikini. What is a Paladin without smites? Fighter in some heavy armor. What is a Sorcerer without its innate "magical origin"? Another Mage that uses spells.

The question isn't potential though, its Identity. And they're absolutely packed full of it. The barbarian is an outsider, not someone who's grown in the cities, who may feature a link to their ancestors. A paladin is a holy knight, do they come from nobility, are they arranging their own order, fulfilled by their own oaths? Thesse are all questions you can ask just from the base measure of those two classes. A sorcerer has the blood of magic within them, they're not bound by a book, by research, but instead their blood an their birthright (of course, sorcerer having the Mechanical issues which is another thing)

No. I disagree with the bulk of the views presented herein. The Fighter and the Wizard are not close to the "least identity" classes. It seems entirely counterintuitive to how one would view the game and idea of "identity."

What are the identity of the Fighter and Wizard, then? Their basic, simple identity.

 

[Remathilis]

I must say, I'm kind of baffled by the perspective, it seems, was meant by the OP and understood by a good number of posters.

From where I sit, the "most identity" would naturally come from the classes that have the BROADEST and (as it's been put throughout the thread) "generic" class story. e.g. The Fighter fights! The Mage uses spells! They can incorporate the widest number of possible characters.... somehow the MOST potential for the most number of possible characters, does NOT equal "most identity?!"

Conversely, the "LEAST identity," what the OP was asking for (and then left out the class that people overwhelmingly agreed would lead), would be those classes that contain within them the LEAST potential. The least number of character types, because it is the most narrowly defined narrative. It could be awash in specialty mechanics, all its own (and most are), but mostly -or the most egregious- still a one-trick pony.

What is the Barbarian without Rage? Fighter in a fur bikini. What is a Paladin without smites? Fighter in some heavy armor. What is a Sorcerer without its innate "magical origin"? Another Mage that uses spells.

The identity of a class has nothing to do with its mechanics. You can have a fantastically complicated, mechanical, class....with a "found in one place in a given fantasy world. There are ten of them across the continent." And they would have, seems to me/from my perspective, LESS identity than a fighter with a sword and spear or a mage with their staff and spellbook, who could be found just about anywhere.

No. I disagree with the bulk of the views presented herein. The Fighter and the Wizard are not close to the "least identity" classes. It seems entirely counterintuitive to how one would view the game and idea of "identity."

Because most people view flavor as uniqueness, not adaptability.

By your standard, the food most with the most identity is white bread. Think of all the stuff you can make with it! Sandwiches, toast, stuffing! You know what doesn't have identity? Mac and cheese. Oh sure, you can toss bacon or tomatoes on it, but you only can ever make Mac and cheese with it. Given a choice, people will choose white bread over Mac and cheese for dinner, right?

 

[steeldragons]

I mean, you said the exact problem. They don't have an identity of their own. They're too spread so their identity has been eroded away to be meaningless. Yeah, they can be anything, but that's not good in this case because in being anything they've completely missed being something more specific with a clear identity. Why does my samurai, my knight and my lancer play so similar when I can boot up other things in this genre and they play absolutely differently? Why are a necromancer and an illusionist bound to the same generic building blocks, barely any differentiation provided for each to go further into their specific thing?


The question isn't potential though, its Identity. And they're absolutely packed full of it. The barbarian is an outsider, not someone who's grown in the cities, who may feature a link to their ancestors. A paladin is a holy knight, do they come from nobility, are they arranging their own order, fulfilled by their own oaths? Thesse are all questions you can ask just from the base measure of those two classes. A sorcerer has the blood of magic within them, they're not bound by a book, by research, but instead their blood an their birthright (of course, sorcerer having the Mechanical issues which is another thing)


What are the identity of the Fighter and Wizard, then? Their basic, simple identity.

Pretty sure one of my posts already covered that. The Fighter uses weapons, engages/specializes in being good at combat. The Wizard uses knows about and uses magic.

Those are the roles. Their "jobs," as it were. Their identity within the game...any game. Any world. That's what they do. They can fit in anywhere. THAT is a LOT of "identity."

Whether the magic is learned from "a book" (which, again, baffling why this is such a problem/foreign an idea for so many people) or a bloodline? Comes out of a wand you bought at the wand guy's store on Whozzitsever Alley? Or you're covered in rune tattoos that you peel off as solid shadows? You make magic happen. That's your identity.

Are you a samurai with a katana and longbow, a knight with a sword and backup morningstar, or a "lancer" with a lance on a horse does not alter the FIghter's identity. You are to get into combat and break heads! You can do that with "honor" or "chivalry" or a reckless abandon for skewering things at the end of your polearm. That's up to you, the player, to make your character happen the way you want. That is not "the class" having or not having "identity."

What "fluff" (or mechanics, for that matter) you dress that magic-use or fighting up in is completely immaterial to the "identity" of the class. You being able to "ask about a paladin's "order or holiness" or whatnot does not give the class "identity." It's just narrative specificity needed to justify the additional mechanics to warrant the class being separate from a Fighter (with an oath) or a Cleric (with a sword).

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

No. Your descriptions are not quite right & obfuscating that by comparing oranges to socket wrenches. That description of how wizards play isn't bad if you include 3.x where wands and scrolls played a notable role. For 5e though you are projecting wants & assumptions that don't flesh out in actual play.
With 5e "having this massive [spell] list that no one else has" is the wizard's identity. Unfortunately the very next thing crawford said there about protecting that identity was never done in 2014 when they gave basically the entire wizard spell list to sorcerers

Your description of the sorcerer identity is entirely unrelated to anything in play or mechanics though becausethey don't have a meaningfully limited spell pool they have the exact sa,e spell slorts & spell progression & your comparison somewhat depends on an assumprion/implication that wizards are swapping out prepared spells regularly.

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.

We are talking about class design & how their mechanics result in being played in an indistinguishable way at the table not writing a novel where "imagination" rather than mechanical design is the deciding factor.

 

[Aldarc]

A van helsing sort of cleric has its most direct roots to literature back 100 years. A fighter is older than civilization. An artificer? That’s much newer and less universal.

The Daedalus myth says hello. So I guess that makes the Artificer older than the Cleric.