Core features to feel like <class>

[PhoenixPhyre]

In some cases, classes have a "core feature" or "core mechanic", one that, when you see it, you know that the (player) character in question has at least one level of <class>. This is a discussion of those features.

Special note: I never consider Spellcasting to be a Core Feature. Because it's too common. Merely casting spells, alone, doesn't distinguish anybody.

Artificer: Infusions, probably. Maybe Flash of Genius? Although that's really close to Bardic Inspiration...dunno. Don't know artificers well enough to be sure.

Barbarian: Rage, obviously. When the player of the unknown-class character says "I Rage", that means they have at least one level of Barbarian.

Bard: I'd say Bardic Inspiration. There are a lot of ways to steal spells from other lists, so merely casting off-list spells doesn't qualify, and you don't see Magical Secrets being chosen in character.

Cleric: Divine Intervention, of course. Although really, Channel Divinity (especially) Turn Undead is almost a Core Feature. Silly Paladins.

Druid: Wildshape. Others can polymorph, but druids do it more and are most known for it. As well as keeping their selves while changed.

Fighter: Probably Action Surge. Indomitable is both too weak and too late in coming. Just attacking a lot is shared by other classes, including Monks.

Monk: Martial Arts/Flurry of Blows? Maybe Deflect Arrows or Stunning Strike?

Paladin: Lots to choose from. Divine Smite, Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, various Auras.

Ranger: <sarcastic>Favored Terrain/Enemy?</sarcastic>

Rogue: Sneak Attack. Hands down.

Sorcerer: Metamagic. Despite being able to get it via feat.

Warlock: Eldritch Blast. Ok, really Invocations? Meh. All their good stuff got splashed around to other people.

Wizard: None. Wizards have no features other than spellcasting. Ok...struggling here. Arcane Recovery is mimicked by the Land Druid, and Signature Spell/Spell Mastery comes on way too late and requires you to count spell slots used to detect it in use. Some of the subclasses have distinctive things (Bladesong, the Arcane Ward, etc), but the base class itself doesn't even have as much as the fighter does. Or even, sad as it is, the ranger has more distinct (but less powerful) "defining features". I mean...being able to scribe spells is a feature...maybe that's their defining thing?

Overall, I'd rate 7.5/13 as having good, obvious Core Features. Things that no one else can really replicate without dropping levels. Sorcerers (Metamagic) is the half one, since you can get it by feats. The ones without a clear choice are

Artificer--this is probably just my lack of knowledge. I mean...anyone can have magic items. So just having magic items isn't a super obvious Core Feature. Maybe the extended attunement? But that's super high level...dunno.
Ranger--they've got lots of unique features...it's just they're mostly passives you don't really see called out. Or they're super situational.
Warlocks--when your Core Feature gets taken by a feat...although maybe Pact Magic is unique enough? But that's kinda meta.
Wizard--Yeah. Once you take away spellcasting as being way too common, wizards really don't have much left that can even possibly qualify. And even the subclass ones are generally "nice to have, but almost all your power is in your spell list." You can play a Bladesinger who rarely, if ever, uses Bladesong and do just fine. DOing that with a Barbarian and Rage leaves lots on the table. Even a non-moon druid gets very little benefit out of several features by not wildshaping (Natural Spell, for example, as well as the meta "Wildshape improvement" features). Bladesong is basically just one and done.

----------------

What did I get wrong? What do y'all think are the Core Features of each class? Should classes have a Core Feature that's kinda their unique thing? What does it take to "feel like a <insert class here>" for you?

[nickl_2000]

For Wizards I would say it's ritual casting from the spellbook without it being prepared

[stoutstien]

Artificer - infusions and unique spell casting requirements. The later should have been better developed.

Barbarian- big HD dice and risk reward. Rage is a uniquely named feature but the mechanics of it isn't actually a one off.

Bard- bardic inspiration and magic secrets

Cleric- honestly in a game without multiclassing or feats the collection of features they have *is* their defining feature. Other than that I'd say there biggest feature is getting a subclass at lv 1.

Druid- wild shapes and poorly worded rules regarding metal armor/weapons.

Fighter - feats.

Monk- mobility and niche defensive features.

Paladin - smite and auras

Ranger- having the most threads about it's identity

Rouge- cunning action and sneak attack

Sorcerer - metamagic and limited spell selection

Warlock- duel subclass pick and invocations

Wizard - nothing really.

[Chronos]

The core feature to feel like a bard isn't bardic inspiration; it's bardic music. Put on a performance in combat, and it buffs all of your allies.

Which means, of course, that the 5th edition class called "bard" doesn't feel like it.

[Amnestic]

I'd say Reckless Attack is a core feature to feel like a barb to me...even if dex barbs don't use it.

[Bobthewizard]

I think the defining features of wizards are ritual casting and their more comprehensive spell list, which is far better than any other arcane caster. It makes sense to not give them much else defining when you give them such a better spell list.

Sorcerers, bards, and warlocks all trade parts of that spell list for their defining abilities. I'd often rather have the wizard spell list than those other abilities, but I like playing the other arcane casters, too. I don't always play a wizard, but I like that it exists, and it lets me make some character concepts that don't fit neatly in another class' subclass.

[stoutstien]

I think the defining features of wizards are ritual casting and their more comprehensive spell list, which is far better than any other arcane caster. It makes sense to not give them much else defining when you give them such a better spell list.

Sorcerers, bards, and warlocks all trade parts of that spell list for their defining abilities. I'd often rather have the wizard spell list than those other abilities, but I like playing the other arcane casters, too. I don't always play a wizard, but I like that it exists, and it lets me make some character concepts that don't fit neatly in another class' subclass.

How is that any different than saying wizard's defining feature is spell casting?

[Amnestic]

How is that any different than saying wizard's defining feature is spell casting?

I could definitely see the argument that a wizard's immense spell list is a defining feature of the class.

Which I think is a shame, but it be what it be.

[JackPhoenix]

The defining feature of a wizard isn't just spellcasting, it's the spellbook, specificially. No other class can just learn new spells any time with a bit of time and gold, and no other class can have its source of power taken away so easily. It's certainly more "core" to what it means to be a wizard in D&D than Action Surge or Metamagic is for a fighter or a sorcerer, considering either of those existed for but a single edition, and the spellbook was a staple of wizards since forever.

[Dienekes]

As is. I don’t think fighters, sorcerers, and wizards have a singular core mechanic to feel like the class.

Sure, they each have some mechanics that are unique to them, but I don’t think if they were reworked in 5.5 and had those features replaced with something else there would be riots in the streets or anything.

Maybe the Wizard’s spell book might. But the rest? They largely just have features to make them a little bit unique but are truly defined by either spells or subclass options.

[Ulsan Krow]

The defining feature of the Monk is that it has to suck



Fighter though = core feature is a jacked up attack action, and maximum feat customisability.

Wizard = maxed out spellcasting (the absolute best at spells) most known etc.

Rogue = a sneaky beaky attack, uncanny dodge and best at skills

Barbarian = angry, has the biggest (hit) dice, a hint of racist, derogatory 'incivility' subtle or otherwise

Cleric = channelling divine powers, maxed out divine spellcasting

Ranger = I don't even know. So many differing accounts on how a ranger should look. I personally prefer the base ranger to not be so spellcastery

Paladin = Good guy with divine powers but still a souped up attack action

Druid = Wildshape for sure

Bard = inspiration

[TurboGhast]

The order's a little weird because I'm saving my most exciting answer for last.

Barbarian: Rage.

Wizard: Spellbook.

Cleric: Channel Divinity.

Rogue: Sneak Attack.

Paladin: Unsure. Lay on Hands may seem like a possible answer, but it doesn't define their playstyle the way the ones I've already discussed have.

Druid: Wildshape.

Bard, Ranger, Monk, and Warlock: I can't think of a feature that stands out as iconic and playstyle defining as the ones I've already brought up for these classes.

Fighter: Combat Challenge, the ability from 4e that lets fighters mark opponents, and if they ignore you to attack someone else, punish that with an attack on top of the penalty the mark applies to that attack roll. The lack of something like this in 5e is something I'd consider a flaw in the design of its Fighter class.

[Ulsan Krow]

The order's a little weird because I'm saving my most exciting answer for last.

Barbarian: Rage.

Wizard: Spellbook.

Cleric: Channel Divinity.

Rogue: Sneak Attack.

Paladin: Unsure. Lay on Hands may seem like a possible answer, but it doesn't define their playstyle the way the ones I've already discussed have.

Druid: Wildshape.

Bard, Ranger, Monk, and Warlock: I can't think of a feature that stands out as iconic and playstyle defining as the ones I've already brought up for these classes.

Fighter: Combat Challenge, the ability from 4e that lets fighters mark opponents, and if they ignore you to attack someone else, punish that with an attack on top of the penalty the mark applies to that attack roll. The lack of something like this in 5e is something I'd consider a flaw in the design of its Fighter class.

I disagree that CC/a pseudo'taunt' or marking feature is a core Fighter chassis. I feel moreso Fighter is as much a blank canvas class as Wizard but for feats and hitting things rather than spells. I think a Defender-esque 4e designation is a bit too limiting for the class's identity.

[Dienekes]

I disagree that CC/a pseudo'taunt' or marking feature is a core Fighter chassis. I feel moreso Fighter is as much a blank canvas class as Wizard but for feats and hitting things rather than spells. I think a Defender-esque 4e designation is a bit too limiting for the class's identity.

That’s the thing, I think.

Fighter doesn’t have a mechanical identity. It has an aesthetic identity. I don’t feel less of a Fighter in 5e before level 6 when I get the bonus feat. Or if I forget to use Action Surge for a day.

Now, and this is entirely my opinion, the best class mechanics are ones that make you feel more like the class fantasy is trying to convey. The problem is, there have been several mechanics that have been used to represent martial prowess and no one can really agree on which is the best.

[Zevox]

Coming from the perspective of someone who started with 3.5:

Barbarian: Rage.
Bard: Some sort of inspiring and song-based mechanics (Bardic Inspiration and Song of Rest in 5E, the Inspire/Song mechanics of 3.5E).
Clerc: Divine magic with an emphasis on healing, buffing, and status effects over damage; Turn Undead.
Druid: Nature-themed magic with a mix of damage and support, plus some healing; Wild Shape.
Fighter: Bonus feats, oddly, is the thing that strikes me across those editions. Sure, Action Surge is the obvious big thing unique to them in 5E, but since it wasn't in previous editions, it can't feel like the core feature of the class to me.
Monk: Flurry of Blows and Deflect Arrows feel like the biggest standouts. Slow Fall, to a lesser extent.
Paladin: Smite, Lay on Hands, Aura of Protection.
Ranger: Favored Enemy. Too bad it sucks in 5E unless you use the Revised Ranger.
Rogue: Sneak Attack, getting more skills than other classes.
Sorcerer: Spellcasting with a more limited array of spells known than other full caster classes in exchange for some upside (spontaneous casting and more spell slots than other casters in 3.5E, metamagic in 5E).
Warlock: Eldritch Blast, some kind of unusual limitation on their casting compared to other caster classes in exchange for some upside (very limited number of spells with unlimited uses in 3.5E, fewer spell slots that recharge on a short rest and always cast at their highest spell level in 5E).
Wizard: Flexible, spellbook-based spellcasting, with a very wide spell list to learn from.

[OldTrees1]

The thread implied 2 questions. I answered both.

These are the features I expect as the core of a class:

Artificer: Create magic items (5E's infusion system is rather good)
Barbarian: A self buff (usually rage). Martial prowess.
Bard: At will play music to have an effect. Bardic Lore (can be increased skills, probably includes some non musical magic).
Cleric: Spellcasting (although not necessarily vancian). Healing magic. Minor martial prowess.
Druid: Nature lore. Spellcasting (although not necessarily vancian). Options to gain animal companions and/or wildshape.
Fighter: Customizable martial prowess. Plenty of skills or other non combat features.
Monk: Unarmed Strike. Be faster (higher speed, more attacks/actions, better reflexes/reactions).
Paladin: Passive protection for your allies (usually auras). Healing (damage and conditions). Mental defenses vs mind effecting effects. Martial prowess.
Ranger: Nature Lore (the thematic core). Martial Prowess. Nature Magic (not necessarily spellcasting).
Rogue: Skills and a way to use their skills in combat. Note: Sneak Attack, Stealth, and Burglary are not core features. They are one example out of myriad different Rogues.
Warlock: At will magic (usually spellcasting). Passive magic (traditionally called invocations)
Wizard/SorcererThe 2 arcanist mage classes: Spellcasting (although not necessarily vancian). Minor at-will magic (5E cantrips for example). Minor passive magic beyond spellcasting.


These are the features that make me suspect a character has levels in that class:

Artificer: Create magic items
Barbarian: Rage
Bard: At will play music to have an effect. Bardic Lore (can be increased skills, probably includes some non musical magic).
Cleric: They might be a druid or a paladin, investigate further
Druid: Wildshape.
Fighter: Customizable martial prowess.
Monk: Be faster (higher speed, more attacks/actions, better reflexes/reactions).
Paladin: Passive protection for your allies (usually auras).
Ranger: They might be a druid, fighter, or rogue, investigate further
Rogue: Sneak Attack (despite not being a core feature of Rogue)
Warlock: At will magic
Wizard/Sorcerer: They might be a sorcerer/wizard, cleric, warlock, or druid, investigate further

[Tanarii]

Barbarian - Boat loads of HP
Bard - Fighter/Rogue with Druid magic
Cleric - HA & Turn Undead & healing magic
Druid - Animal & elemental magic
Fighter - HA, all weapons, and best saves in the game
Monk - Unarmed & unarmored fighting
Paladin - HA, Detect Undead/demons, Lay on Hands
Ranger - Bonus against giant-class enemies & ambush/stealth skills
Rogue - Rogue skills
Sorcerer - Spontaneous Casting
Warlock - At will abilities and temp HPs
Wizard - d4 HD and unable to cast in armor

[KorvinStarmast]

The defining feature of a wizard isn't just spellcasting, it's the spellbook, specificially.
This. As to the rest:
Core features to feel like <class>

Artificer: There isn't one. They are an amalgam of other classes.
Barbarian: Rage, and feats of athleticism.
Bard: I'd say Bardic Inspiration and using music-magic to change / do things
Cleric: Turn Undead. Then other Divine Powers. Healing.
Fighter: Action Surge. Fighting styles, and ability to use all weapons and armor. (They ought to have a mounted combat feat as a default).
Monk: Ki and unarmed combat plus stun. Stun goes back to Blackmoor.
Paladin: Divine Smite, Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, various Auras.
Ranger: Do more damage to giant type creatures, so Hunter has the 3rd level feature you seek. That, and primal spell casting, stealth.
Rogue: Sneak Attack. Lockpicking and climbing is right up there, going back to Greyhawk.
Sorcerer: Metamagic. Yes.
Warlock: Eldritch Blast and Invocations
Wizard: The spell book.

[Phhase]

As an artifice-liker,

Artificer: Crafting, and using tools, bar none. Including constructs. Importantly, it should have unparalleled flexibility in this one dimension, offset by prep time, and cost.

Sorcerer: not Metamagic, bite me. I'm bitter Wizard lost it. Spellcraft though, that would be cool.

[Notafish]

The thread implied 2 questions. I answered both.

These are the features I expect as the core of a class:


I think the question of what core features provide a class' "feel" is the more interesting question. I agree with some of Old Trees' choices, but the spellcasters should have different core feels, even if they don't in terms of mechanics.



Artificer: Create magic items (5E's infusion system is rather good) Agree.

Barbarian: A self buff (usually rage). Martial prowess. Also yes. And, with the exception of the Berzerker, I think this is captured in 5e.

I have more to say about the later-in-the-alphabet classes:

Bard: I think the 5e bard leans harder on the Bardic Knowledge side of things than the musical buffs and for me, the class's core feel should come from this - the Bard is a spellcaster who gains their power incidentally in the course of their other pursuits (whether it's music, history, or carousing). This is a bit disconnected from the class mechanics in combat, but Magical Secrets works within this concept, and the charisma-dependence of bardic spellcasting means that the business of being a bard is aligned with the spellcasting (if only accidentally).
Cleric: The cleric's power comes from their faith - even more than the bard, this is established through roleplaying, rather than RAW mechanics. That said, several of the cleric-oriented spells are distinctly divine in nature, and they use their holy symbol as a spellcasting focus.
Druid: The druid's power comes from their connection to and understanding of nature. Wildshape works toward this purpose, but I wish the spellcasting was different, perhaps more defined by the local environment or the druid's supplies than what spells from the full list the druid prepared in the morning.
Fighter: The 5e fighter's core "feels like" feature, in my opinion, is the weapon feat they choose. Action Surge is core to the class' value in the field, but it only feels like you're playing a fighter if you can use AS to power attack.
Monk:The whole Monk package works to support the concept (even if ki could be improved). If pushed, I guess I'd be split between Unarmored Defense and Flurry of Blows for the signature feature.
Paladin: Smites. Smites for days. Why does this make you feel like a Paladin? Well, you could be doing other things with those spell slots, but if you wanted to use your divine connection to ask the spirits for help, you would have joined the clergy. That's not for you. No, you are a creature of action, and there's enemies that need smiting!
Ranger: What I want the Ranger to be and what the class offers are two very different things. Natural Explorer and Hunters Mark both support the idea of a "civilized" approach to wilderness survival, though.
Rogue: Sneak Attack is iconic, and Expertise is good, but I think Cunning Action is the feature that does the most for encouraging the fantasy of someone relying on their alacrity to gain the upper hand.
Sorcerer: Font of Magic/metamagic: Sorcerers are innate mages with a limited portfolio. Since their spells are part of their person, it makes sense that they have a high degree of control over how much they are used and what can be cast.
Warlock: Invocations. Having a high degree of customizability wrt new powers can be easily imagined as an ongoing bargaining process with the patron.
Wizard: As others have said, it's the spellbook! Like the cleric, I think the wizard's wizardliness needs to be established through roleplaying more than rules. Bringing back 3.5-style casting (each casting prepared separately) for this class would help link the mechanics with the fiction (though some flexibility might be needed for balance - possibly allowing spellbook spells in the wizard's chosen specialization to be swapped in several times/rest?)

[JackPhoenix]

Artificer: Focus on magic items (or temporary pseudo-magic items). Sitting in a workshop while everyone else is adventuring
Barbarian: Rage, being tough as nails despite sub-par armor. Being able to reach the target quickly. About as smart as nails, too
Bard: Magical music, versatility instead of focusing on one thing. Seducing everything they meet
Cleric: Divine magic, turning undead. Smashing things with a blunt object in between, but worse than a paladin. Forced to be a healbot no matter what they want to do.
Druid: Natural magic, wildshape. Worse at combat and actual wilderness survival than a ranger. Being a dirty, smelly hippie
Fighter: Being decent in multiple fighting styles, but unmatched in a single speciality. Showing others you don't need magic to kick ass. Being useless at anything that doesn't involve stabbing, cutting or smashing
Monk: Unarmed and unarmored combat, mobility. Being underpowered with a ton of random abilities
Paladin: Some healing and protective magic, being awesome against undead, fiends and evil in general, being worse fighter against anything else. Being a knight in shining armor. White horse optional. Or the exact opposite
Ranger: Versatility between ranged and melee fighting, animal companion, best in wilderness, really good against specific type of foe. Magic optional. Completely useless in social situations
Rogue: Sneak attack, being best at non-combat, non-magical things with focus on sneakiness. More focus and less versatility than a bard. Really bad life choices. Probably killed by their own party
Sorcerer: Inborn magic powers (that shouldn't be just the same spells everyone else uses). Being worse than a wizard
Warlock: Eldritch blast, bunch of random weird abilities that aren't just spells. Edginess
Wizard: Spellbook. Specialization in a school of magic. Sucking when caught in melee or unprepared. Being the best at everything because there's a spell for every situation

[Tanarii]

Paladin: Some healing and protective magic, being awesome against undead, fiends and evil in general, being worse fighter against anything else. Being a knight in shining armor. White horse optional. Or the exact oppositeBeing a white horse, knight in shining armor optional? :smallamused:

[Anonymouswizard]

Artificer: the ability to whip up temporary magic items. Three versions of the class have had three different ways of doing it, but they've all done it.

Barbarian: resilience. Super modes are relatively common, but the Barbarian's defensive features are second to none.

Bard: social skill proficiency/expertise. You can go on about music, inspiration, or spells all you want, but unless they're deflowering the innkeeper's daughter or writing Hamlet they're not a Bard :smalltongue:

Something like Inspiration feels better suited to a Warlord class.

Cleric: the ability to lose spellcasting by violating their code.

Druid: being a Cleric subclass with delusions of grandeur and blocking the creation of an official true shapeshifter class. Burn the Druid!

Fighter: nothing, their identity has always been 'tbe generic'.

Monk: do they have abilities I wish Fighters could get? They're a Monk.

Paladin: smite smite smite. Also the ability to literally detect evil, but mostly the smiting.

Ranger: scouting skills, preferred quarry, not allergic to trees.

Rogue: the ability to climb walls. Also other skills that would be useful in a burglary, but low level TSR Thieves could only reliably climb walls.

Warlock: their pact boon. It's meant to visibly mark them as one who made a pact.

Sorcerer: honestly nothing specific. Metamagic is nice but doesn't feel like their key thing, instead each Bloodline gets the thing that makes it feel right.

Wizard: the bloody spellbook.

[Tanarii]

Bard: social skill proficiency/expertise. You can go on about music, inspiration, or spells all you want, but unless they're deflowering the innkeeper's daughter or writing Hamlet they're not a Bard :smalltongue:
I blame 2e for turning Bards into the running gag that is Troubadour Bards: sit in the back singing songs, seduce everything that moves, and say "I'm helping" in their best Ralph Wiggam voice.

5e tried to bring back Skald and Lore-masters, both diplomat/priest bards, with its 2 subclasses, but failed to excise the troubadour bard.

[Anonymouswizard]

I blame 2e for turning Bards into the running gag that is Troubadour Bards: sit in the back singing songs, seduce everything that moves, and say "I'm helping" in their best Ralph Wiggam voice.

5e tried to bring back Skald and Lore-masters, both diplomat/priest bards, with its 2 subclasses, but failed to excise the troubadour bard.

I never said that Bards do nothing but sit in the back singing and seducing creatures. I was honestly imagining a silver-tongued swordsman who has great skill with confidence scams but little magic. Wearing a very silly hat*.

Heck, 2e bards had to sing before the battle (by default at least).

My biggest issue with the 5e Bard is that it's primarily a spellcaster.

* Which in my mind isn't a bard specific thing, hats are cool.

[Talamare]

Artificer: Infusions

Barbarian: Rage

Bard: Bardic Inspiration.

Cleric: Channel Divinity

Druid: Wildshape.

Fighter: Nothing

Monk: Flurry of Blows

Paladin:Lay on Hands, Smite, Detect

Ranger: Favored Terrain/Enemy

Rogue: Sneak Attack.

Sorcerer: Nothing

Warlock: Eldritch Blast and Pacts

Wizard: Spell Book, Best Spell List

[Talamare]

I disagree that CC/a pseudo'taunt' or marking feature is a core Fighter chassis. I feel moreso Fighter is as much a blank canvas class as Wizard but for feats and hitting things rather than spells. I think a Defender-esque 4e designation is a bit too limiting for the class's identity.

At least 4e gave them an identity. In 4e, they were a high damage Tank that controlled the battlefield with their various martial prowess.

In 5e, they are fat sack of nothing special that is arguably bad at everything.

[T.G. Oskar]

Artificer: Infusions. More than spells, the ability to create temporary or semi-permanent magic items, as a sort of utility belt mechanic, makes them stand out. It brings out their "magical gadgeteer" feel than anything else.
Barbarian: Rage, of course. Though, if I were to be a bit broader, it's actually a "battle trance" state of mind - rage is too tied to Strength, and Barbarians should be good at the other two physical stats as well. Rage is also too tied to the "berserker" archetype.
Bard: Battle-wide inspiration. There's a reason why, in Stranger Things, everyone associates Eddie Munson as THE archetypal Bard. Sure - being a bit good at everything is part of the Bard's schtick, but it doesn't make them distinguishable from someone who dabbles as a Fighter, Rogue and Sorcerer/Wizard of some sort (*coughcoughNalecoughcough*). 5e's Bardic Inspiration, though, is too limited as it applies only to one creature, and only for certain tasks they can achieve. Their "magic" should be attuned to their performance, mostlly.
Cleric: Channel Divinity. However, against what everyone says, Turn Undead should NOT be the default. Turn Undead is very restrictive, as it only works to repel one kind of creature as a form of anathema, which is only the domain of certain deities. I can see it for a Sun god or a god of war, but not for a god of trickery because they'd rather try to use undead for their tasks. However, those kinds of deity-granted powers? Channel Divinity. Best change they could make to the concept.
Druid: As others have said, Wild Shape. Sure - much like Clerics and Sorcerers and Wizards, Druids are defined by their spellcasting, but this feature is far too iconic. That said, while I would advocate for something a bit more limited, it would tread on the shoes of the Cleric, as a god of nature and specifically a god related to animals could easily provide the same power to their priests. Wild Shape could and SHOULD be expanded to deal with all creatures related to nature - specifically, beasts, elementals and fey.
Fighter: Martial Versatility. None of the features the Fighter has right now provide this, and it's a shame. Also, it's built-in, which makes it so difficult. Since 1e, the thing of Fighters was fighting better, in a time where spells were super-scarce and took days to recover, and where making two or three hits really made a difference. I would say "Maneuvers" as a close second, since it's one of the nicer things they could've given to the Fighter, but it'd make it too "complicated" for people. If you don't mind the complexity, though, both would be great.
Monk: Ki. Sure, the "defining aspect" is unarmed and unarmored combat, but a Fighter could approach something like that. A resource, however, where you can do outright supernatural feats like throwing fireballs and walking through walls and leaping like you were a Dragoon and dodging bullets and strikes while blindfolded? Yeah, that feels like it.
Paladin: Smites and Auras. Smites have, since 3e, been the Paladin's offensive powerhouse. 4e and 5e spell-smites have brought a level of versatility to this potent maneuver, exclusive yet also integral to them. Auras, conversely, provide that aspect of leadership, inspiration and benefit for others.
Ranger: A "quarry" mechanic. The ranger originally had the ability to cast a couple of Mage and Druid spells, but that shrunk - instead, a combination of exploration mechanics, a specific favored enemy and eventually free unique fighting styles defined them, which were stripped in 5e. A quarry mechanic would make the Ranger stand out - define one target in combat, gain benefits against it. While the Fighter can deal with several people at once with its fancy mechanics and martial prowess, the Ranger would instead single out the most dangerous enemy and pursue it - and if it escapes, seek its tracks and follow it relentlessly. Favored Enemies and Favored Terrains would be an extension of this quarry mechanic, where they don't need to single an enemy out when fighting those creatures or in those areas. The old 3e version of Horizon Walker was a definitely better version of Favored Terrain compared to this one, and even the newer version as a subclass has some cool planar-related stuff. But, seriously - a quarry mechanic. Precision damage against one creature in particular, while still being relatively good against others. (And maybe letting them be the beastmasters?)
Rogue: While "Sneak Attack" is arguably the easy solution, I'd say "Expertise" instead. This was a pretty reasonable way to have Rogues remain the better skill-monkeys. Though I'd rather have the Inspiration mechanic of 3.x's Factotum (which I feel fits the Rogue a lot better, though dropping the spellcasting and limited Channel Divinity boons), the concept of Expertise really defines them. Sneak Attack can still be a defining Rogue mechanic, but it only has its utility in combat, as a sort of "backstab"/"sidestab" mechanic.
Sorcerer: They're too tied to their spellcasting, so spells have to be integral to them. However, I would go wider and say Bloodlines/Origins. The concept they worked of Sorcerer Origins being wider than just specific creatures (Storm Sorcerers, for example, tied to the power of storms, or Shadow Sorcerers to the power of the Shadowfell, or Divine Souls to deities' boons) really made them stand out. The ability to alter their spellcasting through Sorcery Points is also cool, even though I feel Metamagic should be applied to every spellcaster after a certain level.
Warlock: Invocations. Much like Artificers are defined by their "utility-belt magic" aspect, Warlocks getting unique powers from their patrons also works. Eldritch Blast is but one such invocation, and the Pacts of the Blade, Chain, Tome and Talisman, with their granted boons, make that connection to their patrons a lot more interesting.
Wizards: Again, too tied to their spellcasting, but I'd say "casting through their spellbooks" is the closest one? I think I'll join the chorus of unique Ritual Caster.

[Nidgit]

The core defining feature(s) of a class need to be established in their kit fairly early and scale to maintain relevancy. If a core feature is added later, it needs to be powerful to be immediately noticeable.

Artificer:
Infuse Item, 2nd Level. Scales through more powerful infusions and the ability to infuse more items per day. Flexible in relevancy.

Magic Item Adept+, 10th Level. Tier 3 addition that scales by adding more attunement slots. Moderately useful but integral to L20 capstone.

Core feature scaling for Artificers can be pretty variable depending on how effective your magic items are. I'd give it maybe a B rating.


Barbarian:
Rage, 1st Level. Scales via modest damage bump and increase in uses but is often boosted via subclass.

Reckless Attack, 2nd Level. Scaling through PC's natural damage increases.

Brutal Critical, 9th Level. Late Tier 2 addition that is, on average, a minor damage increase that increases every few levels. Treated like a core feature but not impactful enough to matter.

Thematically good, but neither Rage or Reckless Attack scale amazing well and Brutal Critical is a joke of a core feature. D.


Bard:
Bardic Inspiration, 1st Level. Scales in both number of uses and die size, and often boosted through subclass.

Expertise, 3rd Level. Skill proficiencies scale with level.

Magical Secrets, (typically) 10th Level. Tier 3 scales by adding higher level spells. Appropriately flexible and almost always powerful.

The Bards's core features define it quite well and will always be relevant. S tier.


Cleric:
Channel Divinity, 2nd Level. Technically not unique, but increases in uses while the Paladin's does not. Usefulness is almost wholly determined by subclass.

Turn/Destroy Undead, 2nd Level. Scales through increase in destroyed undead CR. Conditional usefulness based on enemies.

Divine Inspiration, 10th Level. Tier 3 addition is extremely powerful but unreliable. "Scales" poorly until L20 capstone.

The extra uses of Channel Divinity are quite nice but my main gripe with Clerics is how Destroy Undead is improved over time in lieu of more interesting class features. Clerics have a good identity but these features aren't worth more than a C.


Druid:
Wildshape, 2nd Level. Scales somewhat in strength but not in uses. Sometimes competing with core subclass uses.

Wildshaping is cool but it's vastly better for one subclass than all the others, and the later abilities reflect that. The spell list is doing a lot of the thematic lifting otherwise. Low C tier.


Fighter:
Action Surge, 2nd Level. Scales in uses and output via Extra Attack scaling.

Indomitable, 9th Level. Scales in uses. Treated as a class feature but only modestly strong.

Extra Attack, 11th Level. Tier 3 feature that solidifies Fighter's identity.

You can argue that extra ASIs are a class feature too but that's way too variable on the player. Still, good for a high B despite Indomitable's slacking.


Monk:
Martial Arts, 1st Level. Scales in die size.

Ki, 2nd Level. Scales in number of Ki points. Subclass always adds additional Ki abilities.

Stunning Strike, 5th Level. Very powerful but only scales with DC.

Very well defined, albeit with serious competition for Ki points. Martial Arts dice should probably go up to a d12. A tier.


Paladin:
Lay on Hands, 1st Level. Scales in HP pool.

Divine Smite, 2nd Level. Scales damage with spell slots.

Auras, 6th+ Level. Scales by adding more effects and eventually range. Often boosted through subclass.

Extremely solid all around and very worthy of an S.


Ranger:
Favored Enemy/Terrain, 1st Level. Situational minor boosts that scale with applicability but not in power.

Favored Foe (XGtE alternative), 1st Level. Scales in uses and damage die.

1-2 options with limited usefulness that scale poorly. Half the reason everyone complains about the Ranger's lack of identity is the lack of pertinent core features. Obvious F.


Rogue:
Sneak Attack, 1st Level. Scales in damage.

Expertise, 2nd Level. Skill proficiencies scale with level.

Cunning Action, 2nd Level. No scaling.

Good for outlining a character archetype, but the most relevant scaling ability, Sneak Attack, only allows the Rogue to keep up with average damage. Kind of disappointing- D tier.


Sorcerer:
Font of Magic, 2nd Level. Scales via number of Sorcery Points.

Metamagic, 3rd Level. Scales in options, power through spell level, and uses via Sorcery Points.

I really like Sorcerers, even if Tasha's made them a little less unique. They need more to help differentiate them from Wizards but Metamagic is still neat enough to earn a B.


Warlock:
Eldritch Blast, 1st Level. Scales through attacks and Invocations.

Eldritch Invocations, 2nd Level. Scales through number of options, but taxed by Eldritch Blast.

If half your core features are a cantrip, something's gone wrong. Warlocks are neat because they're so customizable, but that customization is severely limited due to everything funneling them towards one very good cantrip. Another C.


Wizard:
Spell Book, 1st Level. Scales linearly/irregularly through learning new spells, but always somewhat limited by spell preparation.

I've always found the "utility caster" name to be a bit misleading. Yes, a wizard might know a vast number of spells, but unless they're ritual spells most of them aren't going to be useful on a day-to-day problem-solving basis. Without any other defining features, that's a very generic C.

[animorte]

I think some important things to note are the differences in similar classes.

Having something that another class can't easily replicate (an exception via the random subclass) is what really makes them distinct.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think some important things to note are the differences in similar classes.

Having something that another class can't easily replicate (an exception via the random subclass) is what really makes them distinct.

I agree. And, to be honest, that's more of what I was going for. Hence my exclusion of spellcasting as a Core Feature.

[Mastikator]

Artificer
- Core feature: Infusions
- Theme: Creating magical items

Barbarian
- Core feature: Rage
- Theme: Being the hulk

Bard
- Core feature: Bardic inspiration
- Theme: Magical music

Cleric
- Core feature: nothing
- Theme: being a religious cultist

Druid
- Core feature: Wildshape
- Theme: being a nature cultist

Fighter
- Core feature: Extra attack
- Theme: being a master of arms

Monk
- Core feature: Martial arts
- Theme: martial arts

Paladin
- Core feature: Divine Smite
- Theme: oath

Ranger
- Core feature: nothing
- Theme: being a survivalist

Rogue
- Core feature: Sneak attack
- Theme: stealing

Sorcerer
- Core feature: Metamagic
- Theme: being a magical creature

Warlock
- Core feature: pew pew eldritch blast
- Theme: trading your soul for power and magic

Wizard
- Core feature: casting spells
- Theme: spell book

[Witty Username]

I personally find cunning action more defining for rogue than sneak attack. Dash, disengage or hide as a bonus action dramatically changes how a rogue approaches combat.
Cover can provide easy advantage, Opportunity attacks can be safely ignored, and speed is frequently a non issue.
The one feature makes the rogue the best skirmisher in the game.

Wizard: the spellbook encouraging the player to actually pay attention to the world and what is available and allowing unprepared ritual use, I would also add needing a functioning brain, Artificer borrowed this one, but being an Int caster changes the feel of the class alot for me.

[Anonymouswizard]

Fighter
- Core feature: Extra attack
- Theme: being a master of arms

Monk
- Core feature: Martial arts
- Theme: martial arts

So both classes have the same theme? :smalltongue:

[Talamare]

Fighter "My theme is fighting!"
Player "Ah, so you're the DPS King!"
Fighter "Well, no. The game is pretty balanced, and Barbarian is probably ahead of me. Probably Paladin too with the Burst damage."
Player "Ah, so you're more of a Tank!"
Fighter "Ah, not really, again Barbarian is pretty much WAY ahead of me in that regard, Not to mention Paladin..."
Player "Okay, uh, sure... So... Maybe like Battlefield Control?"
Fighter "HAH!"
Player "Yea?!"
Fighter "Oh, No, I'm laughing because of how insanely bad at that I am, Casters are pretty much dominant in this regard."
Player "Okay, so you can't DPS, you can't Tank, and you can't control the Battlefield... So, You're telling me you're basically the worthless as a fighter."
Fighter "Nuh, uh... I can like attack 4x at a point of the game most adventures don't even reach..."
Player "I mean, that's cool. So, at end game you're a dominant powerhouse!"
Fighter "Well... I wouldn't go that far, I mean like ... Yea... I technically can make a lot of attacks..."
Player "Please don't say it..."
Fighter "buuut... by then like Casters are quite literally changing the fabric of the universe... so..."
Player "It's okay... You're still a Champion in my heart... loads pistol."

[Mastikator]

So both classes have the same theme? :smalltongue:

A fighter with unarmed fighting style is just a better monk. I'll fight and die on this hill.

[Anonymouswizard]

A fighter with unarmed fighting style is just a better monk. I'll fight and die on this hill.

It's not going to be too hard, you're fighting Monks :smalltongue:

Honestly the 5e Fighter is just kind of decent. Nothing truly terrible, nothing truly great about it. I'm not sure I'd play any of the core subclasses for it, but it's a decent base for subclasses to build on. I honestly think I'd push new players to the Samurai or Cavalier over the Champion.

[stoutstien]

Fighter "My theme is fighting!"
Player "Ah, so you're the DPS King!"
Fighter "Well, no. The game is pretty balanced, and Barbarian is probably ahead of me. Probably Paladin too with the Burst damage."
Player "Ah, so you're more of a Tank!"
Fighter "Ah, not really, again Barbarian is pretty much WAY ahead of me in that regard, Not to mention Paladin..."
Player "Okay, uh, sure... So... Maybe like Battlefield Control?"
Fighter "HAH!"
Player "Yea?!"
Fighter "Oh, No, I'm laughing because of how insanely bad at that I am, Casters are pretty much dominant in this regard."
Player "Okay, so you can't DPS, you can't Tank, and you can't control the Battlefield... So, You're telling me you're basically the worthless as a fighter."
Fighter "Nuh, uh... I can like attack 4x at a point of the game most adventures don't even reach..."
Player "I mean, that's cool. So, at end game you're a dominant powerhouse!"
Fighter "Well... I wouldn't go that far, I mean like ... Yea... I technically can make a lot of attacks..."
Player "Please don't say it..."
Fighter "buuut... by then like Casters are quite literally changing the fabric of the universe... so..."
Player "It's okay... You're still a Champion in my heart... loads pistol."
Most moderately put together fighters have 30-40% higher dps/dpr tham their barbarian brethren. Also the RK can actively have as high self mitigation of a totem barbarian with the party mitigation of the ancestral guardian simultaneously.

[Mastikator]

Most moderately put together fighters have 30-40% higher dps/dpr tham their barbarian brethren. Also the RK can actively have as high self mitigation of a totem barbarian with the party mitigation of the ancestral guardian simultaneously.

Isn't the SS samurai the premier DPS build? Both nova and sustain.

[stoutstien]

Isn't the SS samurai the premier DPS build? Both nova and sustain.
Late game it does very well but the bog standard battle master is right there most of the time. As is the psi knight and EK.

[KorvinStarmast]

Cleric
- Core feature: nothing
- Theme: being a religious cultist
Core feature is turn undead and other channel divinity. As to religious cultist? No, there are plenty of clerics who are not but some will fit that role. Cultist is an NPC.
Ranger
- Core feature: nothing
- Theme: being a survivalist [/quote]
Core feature is being a survivalist. Theme is being better out of doors than indoors, and primal magic.
Also, suggest you review Hunter.

Rogue
- Core feature: Sneak attack
- Theme: stealing
This is off base. The entire point of the Rogue/Thief archetype is that they out-clever or out-smart the dungeon, or the dangerous situation that they are in. The core feature is being good at a lot of different things (though stealing certainly fits into a lot of their theme). Theme as present in 5e is: McGyver. Sneak attack is "OK, if I've got to fight, I am not gonna fight fair."

Wizard
- Core feature: casting spells
- Theme: spell book
Core feature: Spell book
Theme: Casting spells.

[Arkhios]

TL;DR
.
.
.
Okay, I just wanted to say what I think.

Honestly?

Artificer: Infusions

Barbarian: Rage

Bard: Bardic Inspiration

Cleric: Turn Undead

Druid: Wild Shape

Fighter: Fighting Style

Monk: Martial Arts

Paladin: Auras

Ranger: Animal Companion

Rogue: Sneak Attack

Sorcerer: Metamagic

Warlock: Patron

Wizard: Spellbook

[Witty Username]

So, this feel like a class thing, and what features contribute to that feel. I have some notes that I may misunderstand the premise. Like for example, Sorcerer and metamagic. I think Sorcerer gets metamagic as a unique feature, but it contributes no value to the 'feel' of the Sorcerer for me.
I think this is because I take feel to be associated with flavor or lore. For Sorcerer, I have a hard time remembering the features that contribute to this (Sorcerer feels really bland to me) but I would say some of the early subclass features would be the primary things, like having skin of dragonscales or telepathic communication.

[Dienekes]

So, this feel like a class thing, and what features contribute to that feel. I have some notes that I may misunderstand the premise. Like for example, Sorcerer and metamagic. I think Sorcerer gets metamagic as a unique feature, but it contributes no value to the 'feel' of the Sorcerer for me.
I think this is because I take feel to be associated with flavor or lore. For Sorcerer, I have a hard time remembering the features that contribute to this (Sorcerer feels really bland to me) but I would say some of the early subclass features would be the primary things, like having skin of dragonscales or telepathic communication.

This was years back now. But I’m kinda amused, that when I was looking through the classes and was trying to think of mechanics that really fit the lore of the class in question, the one thing I had for Sorcerers wasnt anything in the base class, it was Wild Magic Surge.

These aren’t people who study and learn spells. These are people that just have magic happen from them. It’s spontaneous and a little scary. Having a mechanic to portray that they may have raw power but without the understanding of Spellcraft fits the fluff right on the money. And it’s relegated to one subclass, with an unfortunately large chance of creating a TPK.

[Mastikator]

So, this feel like a class thing, and what features contribute to that feel. I have some notes that I may misunderstand the premise. Like for example, Sorcerer and metamagic. I think Sorcerer gets metamagic as a unique feature, but it contributes no value to the 'feel' of the Sorcerer for me.
I think this is because I take feel to be associated with flavor or lore. For Sorcerer, I have a hard time remembering the features that contribute to this (Sorcerer feels really bland to me) but I would say some of the early subclass features would be the primary things, like having skin of dragonscales or telepathic communication.

I think meta magic is a nice start for sorcerers to feel like innately magical people. But they should have more non-spell stuff from their subclasses, and I think aberrant mind and clockwork soul went in the wrong direction. All sorcerers should get horizontal power from their subclass, maybe a signature thing like the warlock's eldritch blast but unique to each subclass and not a cantrip.