D&D 5E Which classes are functionally composite classes to some degree?

[Blue Orange]

Having done older editions and moved to 5e, it seems the paladin is more or less a fighter/cleric, the bard a fighter/wizard/thief, the warlock a fighter/sorcerer or fighter/wizard, the ranger a fighter/druid, and the druid a cleric/wizard. It may be why the more popular party mixes included rogue + cleric, fighter, wizard or sorceror and rogue + ranger, paladin, druid--the partial offensive and defensive spellcasting of the last three compensated for the lack of a specialist. Is there anything to this?

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't think you can say the warlock is a fighter/sorcerer. It can be, but not inherently

 

[James Gasik]

With the Ranger and the Paladin, it's a little more obvious (though Ranger does have a slice of Rogue) that there is some hybridization going on, but most classes weren't designed to be hybrids, but more to fulfill a certain archetype.

You could even look at how the Cleric evolved, and see it as a bridge between Fighter and Wizard, though it's magic has a completely different focus.

 

[Stormonu]

I don't think you can say the warlock is a fighter/sorcerer. It can be, but not inherently

That’s likely true for someone who chooses a Hexblade, but that’s one subclass of at least 6. It’s like trying claim that because of Eldritch Knight, the fighter is fighter/wizard.

Paladin = fighter/cleric
Monk = Cleric/rogue
Ranger = fighter/druid
Bard = Fighter/Rogue/Druid (originally)
Warlock = Wizard/Cleric (Arcane caster, but a “minder/source” like the deity of the Cleric)
Barbarian = Fighter/rogue (Rage replaces sneak attack)

 

[CreamCloud0]

That’s likely true for someone who chooses a Hexblade, but that’s one subclass of at least 6. It’s like trying claim that because of Eldritch Knight, the fighter is fighter/wizard.

Paladin = fighter/cleric
Monk = Cleric/rogue
Ranger = fighter/druid
Bard = Fighter/Rogue/Druid (originally)
Warlock = Wizard/Cleric (Arcane caster, but a “minder/source” like the deity of the Cleric)
Barbarian = Fighter/rogue (Rage replaces sneak attack)

I’d disagree completely on barb being fighter/rogue, fighter/druid maybe at a stretch but maybe we’re prioritising different parts of the class concepts.
If anything I’d say Monk is actually the fighter/rogue combo: a martial attacker focusing more on skill and mobility than big weapons and heavy armour.
The four ‘base’ classes
Fighter -
Rogue -
Wizard -
Cleric -
My own combinations for the others are:
Bard wizard/rogue/cleric
Monk fighter/rogue
Ranger fighter/rogue/cleric
Barbarian fighter ver2
Druid cleric/fighter
Paladin fighter/cleric
Sorcerer wizard ver2
Warlock wizard/rogue
Artificer rogue/wizard

 

[James Gasik]

Well if you go back to AD&D, Unearthed Arcana Barbarians did have a lot of abilities that seem a little Roguelike, like climbing and detecting ambushes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The Paladin and Ranger are the base classes. The Fighter is just a hybrid of the two, but using the AND operator.

 

[Minigiant]

None.
Not anymore.
Fight me.

All 12(13) base classes are their own thing. Thinking they are composities is what's holding them back and minimizing investment or enjoyment into them.

 

[Shardstone]

Sorcerer is a Warlock + Wizard.

 

[James Gasik]

Sorcerer currently is more like Wizard MINUS something. I'm not sure what that is, but I hope they get it back in their next iteration.