D&D 5E (2014) Which classes are functionally composite classes to some degree?

[Charlaquin]

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

Ah, yes, like how I’m half minotaur and half mermaid.

 

[Medic]

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.

It's not so much that the Sorcerer got slapped with a minus as much as every other caster got a plus. Now everyone can use every spell that they have memorized. The new default was the Sorcerer's original gimmick.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Well said!

 

[James Gasik]

Ah, yes, like how I’m half minotaur and half mermaid.

So a sea cow?

 

[Charlaquin]

So a sea cow?

Nah that’s a mertaur - when the mermaid is the mom. I’m a minomaid.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hmm... Ok, here we go:

Distinct Classes
Fighter
Cleric
Druid
Wizard
Rogue
Monk (questionably composite...)

Composite Classes
Artificer (Wizard+)
Barbarian (Fighter/Monk?+)
Bard (Rogue/Wizard+)
Paladin (Cleric/Fighter)
Ranger (Druid/Fighter/Rogue)
Sorcerer (Wizard+)
Warlock (Cleric/Wizard+)

While the "+" denotes an additional feature/thing, IMO it is not enough to warrant a distinct class. The composite classes could easily have been written as either subclasses or multiclass/subclass combinations of the classes that they share features with.

In order for a class to be truly distinct, its features should also be distinct IMO.

 

[James Gasik]

Hmm... Ok, here we go:

Distinct Classes
Fighter
Cleric
Druid
Wizard
Rogue
Monk (questionably composite...)

Composite Classes
Artificer (Wizard+)
Barbarian (Fighter/Monk?+)
Bard (Rogue/Wizard+)
Paladin (Cleric/Fighter)
Ranger (Druid/Fighter/Rogue)
Sorcerer (Wizard+)
Warlock (Cleric/Wizard+)

While the "+" denotes an additional feature/thing, IMO it is not enough to warrant a distinct class. The composite classes could easily have been written as either subclasses or multiclass/subclass combinations of the classes that they share features with.

In order for a class to be truly distinct, its features should also be distinct IMO.

Like if they had decided to give the War Domain Cleric extra attack and access to the Smite spells, they'd function like a more magical Paladin.

 

[overgeeked]

There are three core classes: fighter, thief, and wizard. All the rest are either a blend of two or more of those core classes or a reflavoring of those core classes.

Artificer...gadget-focused wizard & thief.
Barbarian...no armor fighter.
Bard...singing fighter, thief, wizard.
Cleric...divine-focused wizard & fighter.
Druid...nature-focused wizard.
Monk...no armor, minimal weaponss fighter & thief.
Paladin...fighter & divine-focused wizard.
Ranger...nature-focused fighter & thief.
Sorcerer...born-special wizard.
Warlock...sold my soul wizard.

 

[NotAYakk]

I did a square for 5e.

Warriors are Paladins, Fighters and Barbarians, with Ranger leaning in.
Tricksters are Monks, Rogues, Bards and Rangers.
Healers are Bards, Clerics, Paladins and Druids.
Sages are Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers and Bards.

For symmetry, you can move where Bard and Warlock are. Make Warlock a Sage Trickster, and make Bard not a Trickster.

But once you have Artificer, you can make Artificer the Sage Trickster, and Bard is the Sage Healer Trickster; Which sort of explains why the Warrior subclasses of Bard are so tempting!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It depends on the degree of fineness you wish to split things with--that is, where you set the bar for what is "baseline."

With the furthest zoom, coarsest grain? There are only two classes, Warrior and Caster, and everything else is an intersection between them or a specialization of them. (E.g., Cleric is a supportive Caster, Rogue is a skillful Warrior, etc.)

With the "traditional" grain? Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief. You could already view Cleric as a F/MU hybrid with support-focused spells, but many will argue this is a more appropriate stopping point (pretty much only due to tradition, not due to anything inherent to the archetypes.) From there, Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Monk are all composite to some extent, just differing as to which elements. Artificer is sort of in an awkward place here because it's sorta like a Wizard/Rogue blend, but sorta distinct as well.

With a "modern" grain? Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Druid, and maybe Monk. (Ironically, you can actually argue that the Barbarian as it exists today borders on being a Fighter/Monk hybrid, since it's picked up the Monk "high defense without armor" feature, even though originally Barbarian was clearly a Fighter/Thief with some arguable Druid elements thrown in for fun.)

I think the inarguable "composite" classes are: Barbarian (Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Druid), Bard (Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric), Ranger (Fighter/Druid or Fighter/Cleric), Paladin (Fighter/Cleric), Warlock (Cleric/Wizard, or Fighter/Cleric/Wizard for blade warlocks specifically.) If the playtest Sorcerer had survived, it would've slotted in here perfectly, being a Wizard mixed with some other class (Fighter for Dragon Sorcerer, likely Rogue for Chaos and/or Shadow, Cleric for Divine Soul, Druid could be a plausible option for Storm, etc.) As it stands, Sorcerer is mechanically not much different from a Wizard other than metamagic, and metamagic doesn't feel uniquely Sorcerous.

The arguable "composite" classes are Monk (Fighter/Rogue) and Druid (Cleric/Fighter?), with the latter having a more clearly distinct niche, as recognized by the Primal power source back in 4e.