D&D 5E Fighter should be called Knight and Monk Should be called Fighter, change my mind

[Horwath]

Barbarian is not the simple class like fighter is. It is fairly simply, and I agree most of its subclasses are comparatively simpler than the fighter subclasses in general. But I've seen more confusion over using Rage correctly, for example, than I have with any core figter feature. Barbarians also have more features to learn and keep track of.

But, that is just my experience with the two.

thinking rage is complicated is because it was written poorly and split with reckless attack needlessly.

How I combine rage and reckless attack in one(then you leave lvl2 barbarian for fighting style) and combine bear totem as default so 90% of barbarians are not Bear totem:

Rage:
at the start of your turn(free action) you can chose to rage:

Rage:
resistance to all damage,
all attacks vs you have advantage
advantage on all attacks, checks and saves based on STR and CON
damage bonus equal to barbarian table
cannot cast on concentrate on spells.

 

[ezo]

thinking rage is complicated is because it was written poorly and split with reckless attack needlessly.

How I combine rage and reckless attack in one(then you leave lvl2 barbarian for fighting style) and combine bear totem as default so 90% of barbarians are not Bear totem:

Rage:
at the start of your turn(free action) you can chose to rage:

Rage:
resistance to all damage,
all attacks vs you have advantage
advantage on all attacks, checks and saves based on STR and CON
damage bonus equal to barbarian table
cannot cast on concentrate on spells.

A topic for a different thread, but there are ways to make Rage easier, certainly.

 

[Horwath]

A topic for a different thread, but there are ways to make Rage easier, certainly.

agree, but barbarian should have been the "stupid" class and fighter the "tactical" class.

 

[pawsplay]

JRPGs agree with you. Various vintage RPGs agree with you (Dragon Warriors, for instance). Plenty of folklore agrees with you (Snow White and the seven knights). A lot of early 20th century sources prefer "boxer" for Chinese fighters, but fighter was also used.

Whether or not they "should" be renamed depends on a lot of things. I would be reluctant to rename fighter if I were publishing a version of D&D or Pathfinder, but I would consider it for another game that has a specific class for a heavily armored warrior. I think renaming monk is a good call, but I wouldn't rename it something confusingly similar to fighter. So I wouldn't call one a fighter and the other a warrior, but knight and fighter are okay.