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

[Horwath]

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.

Sorcerer got a kind of hotfix with Clockwork soul and Aberrant mind subclass.
And if you use spellpoints variant only for sorcerer and put in sorcery points into that "mana pool" you have your unique caster.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’m surprised how many people are calling warlock a composite when it functions so distinctly from any other class. Literally, it’s the only class with its own, special spellcasting rules that don’t work like any other class’s spellcasting. Even the artificer is more like a wizard than the warlock is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m surprised how many people are calling warlock a composite when it functions so distinctly from any other class. Literally, it’s the only class with its own, special spellcasting rules that don’t work like any other class’s spellcasting. Even the artificer is more like a wizard than the warlock is.

It's because of (a) the thematic origin being so clearly distinct from other things, due to the explicit existence of a Patron which could (at least in theory) "pull the plug" on the powers, as Cleric/Deity interactions worked in 3e; and (b) the Pact system making it so overtly obvious that Some Warlocks Are Specifically For Melee By Design, which screams "this is a Fighter/Wizard composite masquerading as its own class."

Now, keep in mind, I'm not particularly taken with the idea of "composite" classes in the first place (I vastly prefer the 4e Source/Role dichotomy for designing and analyzing classes, and "composite" rather loses its meaning in that paradigm.) However, in the spirit of the question asked, Warlock pretty much HAS to be a composite of something. It doesn't have the long-standing history to count as its own totally unique thing thematically (even though its expression of that theme is mechanically unique). Then, the significant differences in mechanical expression due to the different Pacts (and, with Hexblade, Patrons as well) cause most people to see in it an inherent composite-ness due to its role flexibility.

Whether this is fair or appropriate is massively a matter of debate. If we rigorously followed your description, for example, then there would be no composite classes at all: Sorcerers can't be Wizards because they have metamagic and Wizards don't. Druids can't be Clerics because they have Wild Shape and Clerics don't. Etc., etc. Every class has unique mechanics, therefore there are no composite classes at all. If we step back from "does it have any unique mechanics" to "does it have enough, sufficiently-distinct unique mechanics," well, that becomes a huge judgement call. Is Warlock pact magic a world of difference from Wizard spellcasting because it's based on short rests and always upcasts (for spells below 6th level)? Or is it fundamentally identical to Wizard spellcasting, because the net result is that you cast spells from whatever list you have access to, and a spell cast by a Warlock will be identical to the same spell (upcast as needed) cast by a Wizard? That's a pure judgment call, and I'm sure there are quality arguments in favor of either direction.

 

[Blue Orange]

I actually really like 4e Source/Role too, particularly for designing new classes. (What's an arcane 'leader' [really supporter] like?) No model is true, some models are useful. The actual classes are aggregates of 45 years of modifications based on playtesting, customer complaints, and internet flamewars. (Remember CoDzilla, the overpowered 3.5 cleric/druid? Magic-users before damage caps on fireballs?)

My original point was about party balance--if we can say that you need a cleric or two half-clerics, maybe if you have three people and no cleric but you have a paladin you can fill it in with a druid (or celestial warlock). I don't think you can reduce all the four classes completely to combinations of the four groups from 2e, but it may be a useful way to think about what roles need to be filled. (Or may not!)

You can also use it to reskin existing classes, or balance classes imported from somewhere else--for example, in a lot of JRPGs there is a 'red mage' that does both defensive and offensive spellcasting, kind of like a druid, but with more of an academic flavor rather than the druid's wilderness. That type of character would behave in party balance discussions like a druid, but would have a source/role of arcane controller/leader.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts!

 

[Mind of tempest]

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.

Monk = Cleric/rogue

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:

Monk fighter/rogue

monk really does not work as a composite class it does not really work as any class there is a reason it was always bad and that was because it never worked like the other classes are supposed to.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whether this is fair or appropriate is massively a matter of debate. If we rigorously followed your description, for example, then there would be no composite classes at all:

I do believe that to be the case

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do believe that to be the case

Well then, I can't fault you for inconsistency! As I said, it's not really my preferred lens, so I don't really have a horse in the "composite vs pure" class divide.

 

[Stormonu]

monk really does not work as a composite class it does not really work as any class there is a reason it was always bad and that was because it never worked like the other classes are supposed to.

that has not been my experience. They’ve been (annoying) effective in the games I’ve played in and run since 1E.

 

[Stormonu]

On monk being cleric/rogue:

The monk has several supernatural abilities - ability to self-heal, immunity to disease and old age and other baked-in abilities (mostly coming on-line at higher levels). Several subclasses add magical/supernatural abilities to that list, the most prominent being Way of the Four Elements, which grants actual spells. Their outlook has generally been presented as religious as well, even if just seeking “enlightenment”. (Doesn’t hurt they were made a Cleric kit in 2E…)

On the rogue side, they have the rogue’s mobility and get a sort of “cunning action” version. Flurry of Blows/Way of the Open Hand is more or less their sneak attack version (more less than more), and in older editions they actually shared several “thief” abilities. Their reliance on no/light armor strikes me as the same sort of “high mobility” of rogues who rely on their speed (i.e. Dex) to avoid being hit.

 

[Blue Orange]

On monk being cleric/rogue:

The monk has several supernatural abilities - ability to self-heal, immunity to disease and old age and other baked-in abilities (mostly coming on-line at higher levels). Several subclasses add magical/supernatural abilities to that list, the most prominent being Way of the Four Elements, which grants actual spells. Their outlook has generally been presented as religious as well, even if just seeking “enlightenment”. (Doesn’t hurt they were made a Cleric kit in 2E…)

On the rogue side, they have the rogue’s mobility and get a sort of “cunning action” version. Flurry of Blows/Way of the Open Hand is more or less their sneak attack version (more less than more), and in older editions they actually shared several “thief” abilities. Their reliance on no/light armor strikes me as the same sort of “high mobility” of rogues who rely on their speed (i.e. Dex) to avoid being hit.

I think the monk is mechanically a fighter/rogue (more mobile, less armored fighter) and flavorwise more clerical. Gygax watched a bunch of kung fu movies (OK, he read the Remo Williams Destroyer books) and now we're stuck. It really ought to be called a 'martial artist'.