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

[MichaelSomething]

All joking aside, I think a "classless" system could be interesting.

You haven't played 3.5? Just take levels in all the different classes until you create your character!

Why be a Bard when you can be a Sorcerer/Fighter/Rouge?

 

[CleverNickName]

You haven't played 3.5? Just take levels in all the different classes until you create your character!

Why be a Bard when you can be a Sorcerer/Fighter/Rouge?

I was thinking closer to Diablo II and Diablo III, where you basically just choose semi-related abilities off of a feat tree every level. But your 3.5E analogy is pretty close.

 

[Clint_L]

So let's use the category American vegan. I would argue that the American identity is strong enough that people will "American vegan" has some level of tension with a general picture of an American. Is American vegan a strong category? Do people have a strong impression of what an American vegan is like? If I go to Japan and ask someone, "What do you think of American vegans?", what kind of response am I going to get? What happens if I ask, "What do you think of Americans?"

Let's say I go to Kenya, and I ask, "What is your impression of American dentists who like to ski?"

Yeah, this is why this poll is basically a Rorschach test: you see what you want to see in it.

 

[Remathilis]

What really strikes me about reading a lot of posts here is that many people seem to care about labels. That is not right or wrong but it is more persistent than I thought (at least on this message board it is).

When I am thinking up a character concept I am thinking about what I want that character to do, how I want them to act, what I want them to be good at, how I want them to solve problems, how I want them to fight, what their personality is. Then I pick a collection of race, classes, feats etc that meet or most closely approximate that character design goal. I have no care at all whether that Character is called a "Fighter" or a "Rouge" or a "Warlock-Monk-Artificer-Barbarian" as long as it mechanically supports the thematics and play style I want to use in the particular adventure. Class is just one of many tools (arguably the most important tool) used to build the character with the mechanics that lends itself to how I want to play that character.

In this respect class identity is meaningless unless it is so strong that it limits build options and in that respect a weaker identity which affords more diversity in build is better IMO.

I've spoken before that some classes are diagetic (they represent a type of person in the world) and some are nondiagetic (they are blanket terms for a lot of different types of people). Paladin, druid, monk, bard, those tend towards diagetic (the character would consider themselves members of that group in fiction) while fighter, rogue and sorcerer are nondiagetic (people wouldn't address themselves with those titles, at least not how the game defines them.) Thus, you might have Aragorn the Ranger and Gandalf the Wizard address themselves as such, but Gimli the Fighter or Bilbo the Rogue aren't.

What I think is happening is that people want all classes to be diagetic and thus be like titles or professions in the fiction of the world, while others want classes to be nondiagetic meta-parcels of class features that can be flavored however they want. Bob the Fighter might be a knight, a soldier or a gladiator, but Susie the druid is always a priestess of nature.

 

[CleverNickName]

What I think is happening is that people want all classes to be diagetic and thus be like titles or professions in the fiction of the world, while others want classes to be nondiagetic meta-parcels of class features that can be flavored however they want. Bob the Fighter might be a knight, a soldier or a gladiator, but Susie the druid is always a priestess of nature.

And it's not like I don't want anything to be diagetic in the game mechanics; I just don't want it to be defined by class. Subclasses, Backgrounds, or even just backstory would be a better place for that level of distinction.

 

[TwoSix]

What I think is happening is that people want all classes to be diagetic and thus be like titles or professions in the fiction of the world, while others want classes to be nondiagetic meta-parcels of class features that can be flavored however they want. Bob the Fighter might be a knight, a soldier or a gladiator, but Susie the druid is always a priestess of nature.

I'm fine with either approach; I just don't like that they're mixed together.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've spoken before that some classes are diagetic (they represent a type of person in the world) and some are nondiagetic (they are blanket terms for a lot of different types of people). Paladin, druid, monk, bard, those tend towards diagetic (the character would consider themselves members of that group in fiction) while fighter, rogue and sorcerer are nondiagetic (people wouldn't address themselves with those titles, at least not how the game defines them.) Thus, you might have Aragorn the Ranger and Gandalf the Wizard address themselves as such, but Gimli the Fighter or Bilbo the Rogue aren't.

What I think is happening is that people want all classes to be diagetic and thus be like titles or professions in the fiction of the world, while others want classes to be nondiagetic meta-parcels of class features that can be flavored however they want. Bob the Fighter might be a knight, a soldier or a gladiator, but Susie the druid is always a priestess of nature.

Eh, I'm okay with a mixed bag.

I just don't like that a battlemaster fighter is still just a guy who's good with weapons. A Rune Knight is a Thing, but a battlemaster is asking you to add a Thing.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel the Cleric should focus on a specific spiritual community, rather than on a specific deity. It would be more relevant to the adventure setting, while less dependent on cosmological assumptions.

It's not really what the thread is about, but I would personally prefer the Cleric/Priest becoming the "Mystic," much in the vein of Starfinder's Mystic class, and then leave the heavy-armor holy magic to the Paladin.

We are aarakocra of course.

View attachment 364613

You mean Amerikocra?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

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

I feel that sorcerer has way more lore identity, while it has no mechanics identity.

I was voting around lore, not mechanics. And lorewise, wizard is just 'guy with grey beard and pointy hat'.

 

[Mind of tempest]

man, we have way too many semantic arguments what is this philosophy?
in less joking words mechanical and thematic identities are different and need different words so we do not talk around each other.