D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Somebloke]

The mention of all those subclasses for the fighter, compared to just 3 subclasses for the Rogue makes me think they've only really thought out the fighter the most out of all of them.

Based on the latest set of released rules, this is probably because they've been playing around with rogue subclasses for a while now. They just haven't been called that.

 

[GSHamster]

Reminds me of 2E's kits, really.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'm of two minds about subclasses. Personally, I'd rather see them represented as feats - an illusionist takes spells that are illusions and feats that bolster illusions. That way, you can be as flexible or as focused as you want. That said, if feats are optional mechanics, then you can't use them to differentiate. So sub-classes are a necessary part of class design, to cover archetypes as desired. It makes sense, and I don't have a terribly big problem with them. They're basically Specialties that are class-specific.

That said, I get perturbed when I read stuff like, "The two subclasses don't even have to present the same core mechanic...." The whole point of a class/subclass system is to provide a container for similar mechanical and thematic elements. Yes, all Fighters do need to share the same basic mechanics (and theme), because that's the basic class definition! Otherwise it's not a subclass, it's just a hodgepodge of junk lumped together just because, and why even bother having subclasses at that point?

 

[LightPhoenix]

The mention of all those subclasses for the fighter, compared to just 3 subclasses for the Rogue makes me think they've only really thought out the fighter the most out of all of them.

Based on the latest set of released rules, this is probably because they've been playing around with rogue subclasses for a while now. They just haven't been called that.

I'd also venture a guess that a lot of classes over the years can basically be boiled down to "Fighter Plus". Paladins are essentially Fighter Plus Cleric. Warlords are essentially Fighter Plus Bard. Barbarians are essentially Fighter Plus Rage. There's a lot less of that stuff focused on the Thief/Rogue, and the case could be made for them being Fighter Plus Skills, especially in later editions. It's not surprising that when they started looking at core classes, a lot of them ended up being slight variations on the Fighter. If it's good for the Wizard and Cleric, why not for the Fighter as well?

 

[Ichneumon]

The mention of all those subclasses for the fighter, compared to just 3 subclasses for the Rogue makes me think they've only really thought out the fighter the most out of all of them.

I doubt that the rogue will come rolling out the gate with only three subclasses. To hazard a guess, I expect the acrobat, rake and treasure hunter (with a better name) to be there too. If the fighter's getting the samurai, the rogue may get the ninja.

 

[Weather Report]

I am pleased at them reinforcing that Feats and Skills are strictly optional.

Surprised to see the Scout mentioned as a Fighter subclass, I would think Rogue.

I too am a bit wary if they turn out to be as defining/narrow as 4th Ed builds.

 

[pemerton]

Warlord isn't a class, spelled out in specific language. Guess we stick with 4E or check out 13th age or Exalted 3E.

I think that might be a little quick.

The key question, for me at least, isn't whether or not warlord is a distinct class - afterall, as an archetype it overlaps with elements of the fighter and elements of the paladin.

The key is whether the game can build a warlord. Based on current playtest material, I have tended to doubt that it has the mechanical space/resources to do so within the confines of a fighter (especially in a predominantly "at-will" environment). But when Mearls says "The two subclasses don't even have to present the same core mechanic, with the duelist using expertise dice and the warrior simply gaining a series of static bonuses", that at least opens up the possibility that the warlord sub-class of the fighter may use mechanics that are different from the basic fighter's, and that have the requisite depth to give a full warlord experience.

 

[wedgeski]

That said, I get perturbed when I read stuff like, "The two subclasses don't even have to present the same core mechanic...." The whole point of a class/subclass system is to provide a container for similar mechanical and thematic elements. Yes, all Fighters do need to share the same basic mechanics (and theme), because that's the basic class definition! Otherwise it's not a subclass, it's just a hodgepodge of junk lumped together just because, and why even bother having subclasses at that point?

I tend to agree but I think the D&D audience as a whole has a greater stomach for mechanical diversity than I do.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think the difference between a class and a subclass is whether or not there are lots of different types of it. So if you say the class is Fighter, we can all think of a bunch of types of Fighter who need their mechanics to operate as intended. If we say Samurai, well, that's so specific that it's getting hard to think of different mechanics for different types of Samurai.

That's why I think the Warlord is a subclass. How many kinds of Warlord are there that need their own mechanics? There's the one that uses his brain and tactics, and there's the one that uses his charm and motivates, which is a bit of a bard, and um, there's the one that uses a bow? That's where it starts to fall down for me, since using ranged attacks is not something that needs unique mechanics. The split between the other two is legitimate though and I could see Tactician and Commander as Fighter subclasses.

That's also why I think the Paladin is not a Fighter subclass, because there are lots of archetypes that fit nicely within the Paladin - the champion of good, the warden, the blackguard, the avenger and so on. If it wasn't for Clerics having a dozen archetypes themselves because of deific variation, then Paladins might be a subclass of the Priest.

That brings me to Rangers, which I think are a little bit on the subclass side of things. They're good at fighting and skilled, but any subclasses I could try to think up for them aren't that unique. I can see why they gave them spellcasting (but um, that's pretty generic too). They can be scouts, which is roguish, hunters, which is fightery, beastmasters, which is druidic.. I guess that's the issue, they are subclasses of multiple classes - doesn't that make them a speciality/background?

 

[Li Shenron]

The whole point of a class/subclass system is to provide a container for similar mechanical and thematic elements.

Well, thematic yes, mechanical not necessarily.

Of course completely different mechanics may look odd as alternatives inside a class, but also may not.

At least we already have examples about subclasses where the mechanics are the same but the relative weight of 2 mechanics is different between subclasses: the two druidic circles, they both share spellcasting and wildshape mechanics, one is slanted towards the first and one towards the second.

We also have an example of subclasses (Wizard) where a certain mechanic (rituals) is significantly different in a specific subclass (Scholarly Wizard): rituals can be cast from any known spell rather than only from prepared spells. This may or may not be a "different" mechanic for rituals, depends how you see it, but it certainly has potentially huge tactical differences...

Overall I certainly don't think we need even more mechanics for subclasses, it's probably best to just limit the number of mechanics in the game, and focus the design work on making them as solid as possible. But the subclasses can alter those mechanics, and technically can also introduce more, there's no fundamental limit to this.

For example, Rage could have been a mechanic unique to a Fighter subclass called Barbarian. It didn't happen, because WotC designers have decided that Barbarian is a character archetype with enough breadth to deserve its own class and they chose Rage as a signature feature of such archetype. However, the Barbarian class is the only class that so far has never seen any subclass option, and maybe the reason could be that the archetype is a bit too narrow to create variations, but another reason could be that it is the Rage feature itself which is an encumbering presence in the class with a rigid mechanics: maybe we'll get barbarian subclasses with altered Rage mechanics or focus on something else.

A similar thing could have happened to Ki, to be bundled in a Fighter subclass. However the concept of Ki is much more supernatural than Rage, and much more generic, so it should be easier to create lots of Monk subclasses by just designing tons of Ki effects.