Just putting this in general because, why not?
What is your "defining" shtick, feature (or features), of each class in your D&D (or fantasy RPG of choice)?
We're not going to change what is coming out in a month. Debating what was in 5e or any other edition isn't going to change any of it, so if there was something you liked about some other B/X-OD&D thru 5e - or any other 3rd party system, for that matter- have at it!
It's what you like about a class. How you like to see them portrayed and/or how you enjoy the game playing them -or not playing them, just enjoy seeing them in the game with you, maybe.
Barbarian: A warrior with a "Rage" mechanic. Secondary "survival-y" skills make sense too.
For my tastes, they are from a "wild" people, probably tribal society. Not "civilized/city-dwellers" but likely with societal norms and ideals around "strength," physical (if not mental, also) toughness, and "honorable death in battle."
Bard: Music-made magic and ally support ('"buffs," be they "inspiration dice" or some any other roll bonus mechanic). Chronicler/Lorist. A diversity of minor magics, interactive and non-combat skills.
Cleric: Channel Divinity. If a cleric doesn't have a "religious/deity" flavor built in to justify it's Turning Undead and Divine magic stuff, then it just makes no sense.
Druid: Nature magic. NOT, to my mind, 'Divine" magic. But primordial, natural-world, elemental forces of Nature - capital "N." It can be flavored as "channeling" to keep it connected with the Cleric. It could just be "magic/spell use." Shapeshifting is something I expect from the mythology/lore behind the class and its traditional powerset from 1e onwards...but I don't necessarily think of shapeshifting as the druid's "signature mechanic."
Fighter: I feel like the Fighter's bread and butter is "attacks." Getting to attack more than once a round has been a thing for many many editions now. So, I think I have to say "Extra Attacks" are the fighter's "core/signature" thing. A case could be made, in the pre-feats world, that "Weapon Specialization" might also be class defining for fighters. But nowadays (the past few iterations) I think that's kinda fallen by the wayside.
Mage (a.k.a. "Wizard"): Spell use/progession. That's kinda it. Knowing about history and stuff? They used to have more about making magic items. Or, I guess, getting powerful and turning evil so they create crazy monster-filled constructions as their homes/strongholds. But, basically, a mage that doesn't cast spells, isn't a mage.
Monk: "Ki/chi" is clearly the signature thing for the "shaolin-styled martial artist class." I, personally, think it makes more sense for the Monk's actual "Way/Path/however it is described" subclass...their Martial Arts and how they go about using them in combat - and outside of it... to be what defines them.
Paladin: Smiting...and, I suppose, their other "Divine powers"... without, necessarily, spells. Laying on hands. Anti-Evil auras. Magicky special mount. ...but, really, I think Paladins are just about the smiting.
Ranger: Multi-layered "Expertise" is the Ranger thing. They aren't just one thing, but it might be nice to design a ranger around a specific mechanic that offers them bonuses to all of the areas they generally get/need bonuses for. You need the terrain and survivalist skills expertise. You need the tracking expertise. You need some movement expertise (whether this is actual increased movement or resisting difficult terrains or however it is fluffed). You need the monster lore/favored "prey/quarry/enemy" expertise... And all of those are before you even get to any weapon specialities or (optional, minor, subclass only) magic-use. The "non-magic" warrior-rogue...or rogue-warrior...is the ranger...and they need bonuses on most of their rolls for most of the stuff they do.
Sorcerer: ummmm..."Innate/Inborn magic" and "spells known vs. prepared" was supposed to be their "thing." But I think more hay could have been made by having Metamagic be the defining feature. Neither is ideal. Neither is particularly "singular" or flavorful enough to warrant a class of their own, in my opinion. But that seems to be the case. "Innate magic augmented through metamagics" seems to be as "defining" as can be mustered for something called a "sorcerer."
Thief ("Rogue"): Thievery skills and Stealth expertise. "Sneak attack" is nice n' all. But it's basically there to give them some kind of attempt at balance matchy "increased damage as they level up so they can keep up with fighters and spellcasters." Skill roll bonuses for their grab-bag of useful adventuring skills is what a thief is for.
Warlock: A meaningful Pact mechanic that actually COSTS the character something...and that cost increases with levels/power increases. I signed a contract for magical power with a dodgey non-divine entity ...and the bill will come due! They don't have it in 5e. But it's what, I think, should define the class - Impressive magical power at an ongoing, in-play, in-character cost.
What is your "defining" shtick, feature (or features), of each class in your D&D (or fantasy RPG of choice)?
We're not going to change what is coming out in a month. Debating what was in 5e or any other edition isn't going to change any of it, so if there was something you liked about some other B/X-OD&D thru 5e - or any other 3rd party system, for that matter- have at it!
It's what you like about a class. How you like to see them portrayed and/or how you enjoy the game playing them -or not playing them, just enjoy seeing them in the game with you, maybe.
Barbarian: A warrior with a "Rage" mechanic. Secondary "survival-y" skills make sense too.
For my tastes, they are from a "wild" people, probably tribal society. Not "civilized/city-dwellers" but likely with societal norms and ideals around "strength," physical (if not mental, also) toughness, and "honorable death in battle."
Bard: Music-made magic and ally support ('"buffs," be they "inspiration dice" or some any other roll bonus mechanic). Chronicler/Lorist. A diversity of minor magics, interactive and non-combat skills.
Cleric: Channel Divinity. If a cleric doesn't have a "religious/deity" flavor built in to justify it's Turning Undead and Divine magic stuff, then it just makes no sense.
Druid: Nature magic. NOT, to my mind, 'Divine" magic. But primordial, natural-world, elemental forces of Nature - capital "N." It can be flavored as "channeling" to keep it connected with the Cleric. It could just be "magic/spell use." Shapeshifting is something I expect from the mythology/lore behind the class and its traditional powerset from 1e onwards...but I don't necessarily think of shapeshifting as the druid's "signature mechanic."
Fighter: I feel like the Fighter's bread and butter is "attacks." Getting to attack more than once a round has been a thing for many many editions now. So, I think I have to say "Extra Attacks" are the fighter's "core/signature" thing. A case could be made, in the pre-feats world, that "Weapon Specialization" might also be class defining for fighters. But nowadays (the past few iterations) I think that's kinda fallen by the wayside.
Mage (a.k.a. "Wizard"): Spell use/progession. That's kinda it. Knowing about history and stuff? They used to have more about making magic items. Or, I guess, getting powerful and turning evil so they create crazy monster-filled constructions as their homes/strongholds. But, basically, a mage that doesn't cast spells, isn't a mage.
Monk: "Ki/chi" is clearly the signature thing for the "shaolin-styled martial artist class." I, personally, think it makes more sense for the Monk's actual "Way/Path/however it is described" subclass...their Martial Arts and how they go about using them in combat - and outside of it... to be what defines them.
Paladin: Smiting...and, I suppose, their other "Divine powers"... without, necessarily, spells. Laying on hands. Anti-Evil auras. Magicky special mount. ...but, really, I think Paladins are just about the smiting.
Ranger: Multi-layered "Expertise" is the Ranger thing. They aren't just one thing, but it might be nice to design a ranger around a specific mechanic that offers them bonuses to all of the areas they generally get/need bonuses for. You need the terrain and survivalist skills expertise. You need the tracking expertise. You need some movement expertise (whether this is actual increased movement or resisting difficult terrains or however it is fluffed). You need the monster lore/favored "prey/quarry/enemy" expertise... And all of those are before you even get to any weapon specialities or (optional, minor, subclass only) magic-use. The "non-magic" warrior-rogue...or rogue-warrior...is the ranger...and they need bonuses on most of their rolls for most of the stuff they do.
Sorcerer: ummmm..."Innate/Inborn magic" and "spells known vs. prepared" was supposed to be their "thing." But I think more hay could have been made by having Metamagic be the defining feature. Neither is ideal. Neither is particularly "singular" or flavorful enough to warrant a class of their own, in my opinion. But that seems to be the case. "Innate magic augmented through metamagics" seems to be as "defining" as can be mustered for something called a "sorcerer."
Thief ("Rogue"): Thievery skills and Stealth expertise. "Sneak attack" is nice n' all. But it's basically there to give them some kind of attempt at balance matchy "increased damage as they level up so they can keep up with fighters and spellcasters." Skill roll bonuses for their grab-bag of useful adventuring skills is what a thief is for.
Warlock: A meaningful Pact mechanic that actually COSTS the character something...and that cost increases with levels/power increases. I signed a contract for magical power with a dodgey non-divine entity ...and the bill will come due! They don't have it in 5e. But it's what, I think, should define the class - Impressive magical power at an ongoing, in-play, in-character cost.
