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

[Minigiant]

It would be cleric plus... slightly more cleric.

Nope.

The saint/chosen is smites and innate superpower class.


The paladin in the 5e sense isn't defined by spells. So a Fighter/Cleric would not emulatiing a Paladin as you would miss core Paladin experiences.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nope.

The saint/chosen is smites and innate superpower class.

Didn't they already try the Psychic Warrior?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Didn't they already try the Psychic Warrior?

minigiant wants a magic class that is all abilities no spells this is rather obvious over their post history.

 

[Blue Orange]

minigiant wants a magic class that is all abilities no spells this is rather obvious over their post history.

That's a cool idea! What do you have in mind?

 

[James Gasik]

The problem is that spells, as defined, bite sized chunks of mechanics, are really easy for WotC to design, as evidenced by the large number of them they keep printing. So, by extension, it's easier for them to crank out a balanced class that uses spells, because it only has to be balanced against existing spells.

The Mystic ran into problems because they gave it unique abilities, some of which were stronger than spells (compare Wall of Wood to existing wall spells, for example). And the Arcane Archer (a magic using non spell using subclass) ended up weaker than the Battlemaster.

Although the Rune Knight is promising. I haven't seen an Echo Knight in play myself.

 

[Vaalingrade]

minigiant wants a magic class that is all abilities no spells this is rather obvious over their post history.

Ah. The monk.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Ah. The monk.

well no but your close, more Hercules or Achilles than a martial artist.

 

[Vaalingrade]

well no but your close, more Hercules or Achilles than a martial artist.

So... a well designed monk that isn't hung up on weird legacy 'Asian' stereotypes?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

I don't think any of those are substantively true in 5E (and obviously not in 4E), because in all cases, the classes have significant abilities of their own that the supposed "root" classes don't actually have at all. The closest to true is Druid being Cleric + Wizard, but that's a silly way to understand it, because since 1989 (33 years ago), it's been "Cleric with a different spell list and abilities", rather than Cleric + Wizard. Literally in 2E it was the "example" Speciality Priest class.

So I think this is an actively unhelpful lens to look at classes through.

 

[Minigiant]

minigiant wants a magic class that is all abilities no spells this is rather obvious over their post history.

Pretty much.

So... a well designed monk that isn't hung up on weird legacy 'Asian' stereotypes?

No more like a Warhammer Chaos Champions, the Bible's Samson, or Savage World characters were you outright have a superpower or three.

My ideal Paladin wouldn't even have spells by default and would have a choice of divine blessings that act as superpowers. Spells would be one option.

I don't know why the God of Strength is empowering you with smites and spells. If Hercules chooses you, you get super strength and chuck houses at enemy dragons.

But that's besides the point.

My point is the supposed classes the D&D classes are composite of don't exist in 5th edition.