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

[Maxperson]

This was covered The fluff used to justify casting the same spells from virtually the entire wizard spell list using a different attribute is just that(fluff). The fact that they are casting the same spells from virtually the entire wizard spell list as practically their entire thing irather than something unique is why the bloodline is unused.

I disagree that the Wizard identity is a spell list no one else has. From 1e on they have shared spells with other classes. The Wizard's identity is learned master of arcane knowledge and spells.

The spells shared by Wizards and Sorcerers have nothing to do with their class identity.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree that the Wizard identity is a spell list no one else has.

Even the designers agree that's all these sad sacks got.

That and a suite of entirely meaningless schools with random majicky sounding names. Necromancer can't even bring people back to life.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Taking hits.

Defense is part of fighting, though.

Unless you think unarmored, greataxe-wielding barbarians should be all about defense and sword-and-board heavy armor fighters should be all about offense?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Defense is part of fighting, though.

Unless you think unarmored, greataxe-wielding barbarians should be all about defense and sword-and-board heavy armor fighters should be all about offense?

Barbarians don’t wear armour so the enemy has a reason to attack them instead of more vulnerable party members.

The role of the fighter is to stand around being ignored by everyone because of their obviously high AC.

 

[ECMO3]

i think you might need to turn your perception of the meaning of 'unparraleled mastery of weapons and combat' up a notch or six, a ranger, paladin or barb can definitely hold their own in combat but a fighter should be dancing through the battlefield slaying half of them and incapacitating the rest with effects and conditions at every turn, there's a reason people latch onto the battlemaster maneuvres in every 'improve the fighter' conversation.

IMO a Fighter should never be able to do more with weapons than a Paladin or a Ranger. A Paladin or Ranger should have every fighting ability that a fighter gets and have access magic on top of that.

I generally dislike the idea of effects and conditions from weapon attacks, but if PCs are afforded those, they should apply to every single class across the board. Martials would still get more use out of them because they are attacking more often and have extra attack, but if a Fighter can incapacitate an enemy with a weapon as a base class feature then a Wizard or Druid should be able to as well. IMO it should be a core mechanic of using weapons if we implement that, not something based on class.

 

[Undrave]

Barbarians don’t wear armour so the enemy has a reason to attack them instead of more vulnerable party members.

The role of the fighter is to stand around being ignored by everyone because of their obviously high AC.

A good Fighter would punish the enemy for ignoring them, trapping them in a lose-lose scenario.

IMO a Fighter should never be able to do more with weapons than a Paladin or a Ranger. A Paladin or Ranger should have every fighting ability that a fighter gets and have access magic on top of that.

I generally dislike the idea of effects and conditions from weapon attacks, but if PCs are afforded those, they should apply to every single class across the board. Martials would still get more use out of them because they are attacking more often and have extra attack, but if a Fighter can incapacitate an enemy with a weapon as a base class feature then a Wizard or Druid should be able to as well. IMO it should be a core mechanic of using weapons if we implement that, not something based on class.

And you're part of the problem! You don't want the Fighter to get ANYTHING unique because you can't see them as anything but a default weapon user you staple stuff on top! And no 'extra attack and extra feats' are not enough because they're STILL doing the same thing as everybody, only a few more times, and the third attack only comes in super late so it makes no difference in the levels people ACTUALLY play. Pandering to people like you results in a boring class with no identity.

 

[tetrasodium]

Even the designers agree that's all these sad sacks got.

Back to the tangent about why sorcerer bloodline stuff is not substantial enough to be an identity other than a subclass themed around the idea of "wizard but hot" as crawford has regularly described is the fact that they also gave sorcerer pretty much every spell on that list instead of developing something to hang a class on that didn't involve nearly the entire wizard spell list.

I disagree that the Wizard identity is a spell list no one else has. From 1e on they have shared spells with other classes. The Wizard's identity is learned master of arcane knowledge and spells.

I might agree if we were talking about a different edition not so focused on simplicity, but I linked to the timestamped video of crawford stating it while talking about the wizard

The spells shared by Wizards and Sorcerers have nothing to do with their class identity.

It most certainly does if wotc has declared that the wizard spell list size & exclucivity is a key part of their identity & that the overlap was not practically the entire list

 

[Vaalingrade]

IMO a Fighter should never be able to do more with weapons than a Paladin or a Ranger. A Paladin or Ranger should have every fighting ability that a fighter gets and have access magic on top of that.

So what does the fighter get in return for being buried in the other classes' excrement?

 

[CreamCloud0]

IMO a Fighter should never be able to do more with weapons than a Paladin or a Ranger. A Paladin or Ranger should have every fighting ability that a fighter gets and have access magic on top of that.

I generally dislike the idea of effects and conditions from weapon attacks, but if PCs are afforded those, they should apply to every single class across the board. Martials would still get more use out of them because they are attacking more often and have extra attack, but if a Fighter can incapacitate an enemy with a weapon as a base class feature then a Wizard or Druid should be able to as well. IMO it should be a core mechanic of using weapons if we implement that, not something based on class.

but why not? why shouldn't a fighter be better than a paladin or ranger, they have to spend half their time studying their magic and oath and favoured terrain, the fighter spends all their time learning how to sweep the leg or push enemies back with the weight of their blow or parry and riposte and use their shield more effectively, there are plenty of nonmagical ways to inflict conditions but make total sense a wizard or druid or even paladin or ranger wouldn't have the proper weapon training to execute

i mean i don't object to the concept of weapon actions for everyone but i don't think it's equally true that there shouldn't be ones that some characters don't have the training to perform, it's like saying if you can learn a cantrip as a fighter you deserve 9th level fullcasting because it's all just magic right?

 

[Maxperson]

Even the designers agree that's all these sad sacks got.

Then they are wrong. The lore is arcane knowledge and book learned magic. That's their identity. Not their spell list.

That and a suite of entirely meaningless schools with random majicky sounding names. Necromancer can't even bring people back to life.

We have different opinions about that. I personally love the schools and specializing in one of them. I have almost exclusively played specialist wizards(when I play a wizard) since 2e.

Why do you think Necromancers should be able to resurrect? They are about animating the dead and creating all kinds of undead creatures, not bringing the dead to life.