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

[Yaarel]

I want the player to be able to completely redefine and customize the flavor of a class within the context of a specific character concept.

At the same time, I want the classes to be like paint tubes, as go-tos to add a mechanic and flavor, to the portrait painting of a character. So, an overly generalist class of I am every color possible, is less helpful for character building.

Plus a suggestive default flavor is helpful.

The approach works even better if mixing-and-matching classes is easier, such as taking levels in an other class for the subclass levels and feat levels. Meanwhile, the classes offer a level 0 to help increment the frontloaded level 1 for balance.

 

[steeldragons]

That's not identity though? Everyone uses weapons, everyone's good at combat, over half the classes in the game use magic?

What is the Fighter and Wizard's unique identity? What makes them the Fighter and the Wizard? Fitting in everyone isn't unique

Oh? Can a Paladin fit in everyone? Can a warlock? Can a druid?

Seems like, if you require "uniqueness" to feel like there's an "identity" (and I wholeheartedly disagree/refuse to accept that premise), Fighter and Wizard "fitting in everyone" meets that criteria.

Most of the classes in the game use magic. It isn't their identity.

Pretty sure a warlock or druid or sorcerer, for that matter, would disagree that using magic isn't a crucial part of (or even the base necessity for) their identity (whatever level/degree of identity that may be).

Its why the How you use magic comes into it, and that's the wizard's one defining thing that gives them flavour. They use magic through a book. All those other descriptions you've put down? Those are so different they should be unique classes, not slammed together into one. Its losing any identity of having those unique features together.

I truly don't comprehend what that last sentence is supposed to mean. It's fine. You don't have to explain. I'm just saying, I'm not getting what you mean....other than you seem to think everything that is slightly different counts as "unique" - which equates as "identity"- and deserves its own class.

I don't just play D&D, I also play other video games.

So, irrelevant to this discussion of D&D classes, then?

And y'know an old favourite of mine? The Soul Calibur series, -snip-

I recall liking Soul Calibur, too, bitd/once upon a time.

That is identity. Getting into combat and breaking heads is what every single class in the game does. That isn't an identity and it sure as heck isn't unique to the Fighter. It needs somethign that's unique, that's its own, so it has an Identity. So it means something to be a Fighter.

So doing the damage, defending your companions, leading the charge (in many cases), giving as good as you get, taking more hits than others, and doing it all WITHOUT magical powers or invoked deities or loosing your mind with rage or mystical martial arts... Just your weapons of choice, your brawn (and possibly a bit of brain/tactics/"strategery"), your improving skill/experiences in battle....none of that "means something" as far as being a fighter?

That's not "unique" because other classes in the game engage in combat also?

I really don't have a response to this...that wouldn't get me in trouble, I think. So I'll just keep my thoughts here to myself.

Fluff is completely material to the identity of the class. Its what makes it breaks a lot of them. Its what turns druids from "I can turn into animals" to "I know the old ways forgotten by civilisation, I hold the raw force of nature". Its what makes sorcerer from "I'm like a wizard but more different" to "In my blood is magic itself, it is my birthright, and I will harness its strength to defeat my enemies"

Hahaha. That's just using flowery language to explain the same things. Doesn't make anything "more unique" and generate "more identity" than any other class. But, fine, maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from...

"I drove myself on, as far as I could, to the brink of my own annihilation. None remained standing before me. Beneath my boots, a mire more blood than mud. Only my trusty battle axe kept us from a gory end on the orc horde's blades."

"I have devoted my life to unravelling the secrets of the cosmos, itself. I harness and direct the hidden and occult. The energies of the elements, the forces of eternity, the creatures of the farthest abyss, mine to control. Would you make yourself my enemy? Think carefully."

There. "Identity" (for some), I guess.

 

[Leatherhead]

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

That turnaround is enough to give anyone whiplash, from the bottom of the list strait to the top.

Anyway, I voted for Cleric.
Mostly because it's 13+ radically disparate concepts shoved into a straitjacket with no common through line, and no reason to have similar toolkits other than said straitjacket.

 

[Gradine]

Except you were not talking about mechanics. I mentioned oranges and socket wrenches but wasn't taking about food or tools either.

Except everything I was talking about were mechanics, they are just mechanics that you now evidently pretend are never actually used.

Have you ever actually played d&d with wizard's being played at the table? What you are describing is a quantum spell book or quantum prep list. How you wish or imagine it could be does not create space for the clone stamp known as sorcerer to claim an identity

I have, in fact! And I've had Wizard players who play the game as written, as novel as that apparently sounds to you. I've had a Wizard and a Sorcerer in the same party (same race too!) and they could not have played more differently. And this was at launch, no less!

What you appear to be describing are players who'd prefer to be playing Sorcerers but don't, presumably because of (both real and perceived) balance issues. And I'll be the first to admit that Sorcerers are unbalanced compared to Wizards, but that's not an issue of class identity.

Your argument was that the classes were designed to have no meaningful mechanical differences in identity. This is evidently false, and a course correction to "but no one actually plays it that way!" changes nothing in that regard.

I will, of course, never say no to changes that make those differences even more evident. A more meaningfully different spell list would be a great place to start, honestly. Something like the Bard's spell secrets would be perfect, honestly.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's not identity though? Everyone uses weapons, everyone's good at combat, over half the classes in the game use magic?

What is the Fighter and Wizard's unique identity? What makes them the Fighter and the Wizard? Fitting in everyone isn't unique

i gave my opinion of the fighter identity earlier so i'll just repost that:

they are the warrior, the knight, the general, who lives by their mastery of (typically mundane) combat and battle, their strength and steel and their skill and smarts are all they need to achieve great deeds, they have survived a thousand fights and led a thousand charges, their deeds in battle are the stuff of legend.

their 'lack' of identity more comes from the fact that they are not allowed to truly excell is what is meant to be their area of specialty in comparison to the other classes as well as everyone else being made mostly competent in combat due to it basically being the core pillar of gameplay, even if others may lean more to magic than martial ability to do that everyone possesses a decent capability to hold up in battle that undercuts the fighter's capacity at it, but the fighter should have way more customisability in how they specifically fight and should be far more superior at doing it.

wizards on the other hand IMO is or should be 'the researcher' but are realistically not, wizards have a strong pop culture identity but DnD's wizard's identity doesn't quite line up with that and i think that causes people to think the DnD wizard has a stronger identity than it actually does, i honestly think they could just be a subclass of the bard(collecting knowledge through their stories and travels) or the sorcerer(mastering their innate font of magic through study), they should provide answers, be that in the form of obscure knowledge or precise magical effects(not crude blasting) but i think maybe DnD has drifted too far from what it originally was for the wizard to perform the role of 'lorekeeper', they don't need to research and study barely, they don't need to provide high INT information checks,

 

[mellored]

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

That's because I mistakenly didn't have the sorcerer listed for the first few hours of the poll. So people had to re-vote.

Sorcerer is now in the lead by a healthy margin.

 

[Gradine]

Honestly, the fact that Ranger isn't running away with this would tell me everything I need to know about how there is no consistent definition of "identity" in this context if those arguments weren't already happening in the comments

 

[Mephista]

Thoughts On Ranger- Ranger has a really clear class fantasy across multiple game. Monster hunter, tamer and wilderness expert.

however... the dnd mechanics have always struggled to encapsulate it. In part because the wilderness exploration rules are kinda bad as a whole. So many end up feeling that the class is bland and not evocative. Some people call this a mechaniCal identity.

 

[steeldragons]

And then the reduction goes further.

What is a cleric but a magic user with a holy symbol and healing magic. What is a rogue but a lightly armed fighter with better skills? Why not just have a tank/healer/DPS or a warrior/caster/expert Trinity? Why not just warrior or caster? Why not just one class that chooses weapons and armor instead of a book and wand? Why have any classes at all?

Which is why the existence of a class, any class, is purely a question of taste.

Ad absurdums are fun, aren't they?

The answer to the majority of your "why not's" is simply, because this is D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

Ad absurdums are fun, aren't they?

The answer to the majority of your "why not's" is simply, because this is D&D.

Tautology is equally fun. D&D class exists because this is D&D is equally absurd.

But that was my point: we accept the existence of certain classes (fighter, ranger, barbarian, sorcerer) and not others (assassin, illusionist, warlord, psion) and there is no logical reason to do that, except tradition. Trying to argue validity of why a sorcerer should be a class and not a subclass of wizard is like arguing why chocolate should be on the Baskin & Robbin's 31 flavors, but not Blue Moon. The argument that there should be a 4e level of classes and the argument there should be no classes are both valid because the criteria for both is "my feelings"