D&D 5E Thoughts on Mearls' Comments on Fighter Subclasses Lacking Identity

[MoonSong]

I don't get the complaints about the different fighter subclasses being devoid of flavour, it being a blank state is a very good thing to have. I wish sorcerer subclasses were at least half as generic (without the UA, you are either a repulsive monster or a walking timebomb). We play characters not cookie cutter pre-approved flavors! The genericness of the fighter is a strength not a failure.

 

[Minigiant]

The real enemy is page count.

If there was space you could have

• Champion (simple generic)
• Battlemaster (complex generic)
• Eldritch Knight (magic generic)
• Knight (simple knightly)
• Cavalier (complex knighly)
• Brawler (dimple unarmed/dirty)
• Gladiator (complex unarmed/dirty)
• Sharpshooter (simple ranged)
• Marksman (complex ranged)
• Veteran (simple weaponmaster)
• Kensai (complex weaponmaster)
• Bloodrager (bootleg barbarian)
• Scout (nonmagical ranger)

But... Page space.

 

[Uchawi]

It is my opinion that the fighter should be three separate classes. Then you can expand each to offer more of what players want. Mixing the three subclasses does not make sense even if the names were more meaningful.

 

[jgsugden]

If they'd called the Battlemaster a Warlord, then the lore of the class from 4E would have carried over and given us three distinct concepts: Warlords, Traditional Fighters (Champions) and Eldritch Knights. Much ado about nothing.

 

[Lancelot]

I prefer generic, as do most of my players. Given our frequent play (1-2 fairly long sessions every week) and our play-style (all dice rolled in the open, no fudging, death-or-glory), we go through a lot of characters. Close to 50 since 5e began. And the fighter is the most popular, by a considerable margin.

As has been said by other commenters, the flavor of the other subclasses can sometimes actually restrict the creativity. The monk is basically Bruce Lee, a ninja, or an elemental bender (i.e. Avatar). There is incredibly strong flavor in all three of those sub-classes. But the champion fighter can be anything, depending on simple Background choice. Pirate, mercenary, town guard, soldier, gladiator, knight. I've seen all of these, simply from the champion fighter. My players aren't unhappy with this. You don't need mechanics to model every single subtype; you simply need enough flexibility to differentiate characters. And with Backgrounds, Feats and Combat Styles, we already have that.

So, I really don't think Mr Mearls should feel too disheartened. His team have done extremely well by my group. We think the fighter is one of the best and most flexible classes in the book, from a roleplaying perspective.

 

[Evenglare]

It's always super reassuring that we get told over and over that they want to get 5e RIGHT so that's why it took so long to release. Then a year after release the manager and game designer says they messed up with the fighter....

 

[Corpsetaker]

Then a year after release the manager and game designer says they messed up with the fighter....

Even though they didn't.

 

[Minigiant]

I prefer generic, as do most of my players. Given our frequent play (1-2 fairly long sessions every week) and our play-style (all dice rolled in the open, no fudging, death-or-glory), we go through a lot of characters. Close to 50 since 5e began. And the fighter is the most popular, by a considerable margin.

As has been said by other commenters, the flavor of the other subclasses can sometimes actually restrict the creativity. The monk is basically Bruce Lee, a ninja, or an elemental bender (i.e. Avatar). There is incredibly strong flavor in all three of those sub-classes. But the champion fighter can be anything, depending on simple Background choice. Pirate, mercenary, town guard, soldier, gladiator, knight. I've seen all of these, simply from the champion fighter. My players aren't unhappy with this. You don't need mechanics to model every single subtype; you simply need enough flexibility to differentiate characters. And with Backgrounds, Feats and Combat Styles, we already have that.

So, I really don't think Mr Mearls should feel too disheartened. His team have done extremely well by my group. We think the fighter is one of the best and most flexible classes in the book, from a roleplaying perspective.

Can't we have both though.

2 generic "fill in the flavor" subclasses
2-5 concept "built for the archetype" subclasses

Because as is, not every flavor of fighter works as the class is built to be generic.

You can't make a brawler fighter. You have to dip for Monk levels (meaning you can't use armor, shields, or martial weapon) or take the Tavern Brawler feat (which is mostly wasted as a fighter as it is weaker than fighter weapons and thus only works when you can't use your weapons).

You can't make a gladiator fighter as fighter lack Unarmed Defense, so you'll have to dip barbarian or monk for that and this messes with your ability scores and adjusts your PC's flavor.

etc etc.

Also other classes lack generic subclass. Every rogue for the sages, hermits, nobles, urchins, and criminals are either shifty burglars, trained killers, or partial illusionists. Every sorcerer has a dragon greatgrandpappy, got really unlucky, or born blessed by the storms.

The paladin's design was probably best. You have the mostly generic Devotion oath and the flavorful Ancient, Oathbreaker, and Vengeance oaths.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Here is the problem I see.

Wizards has stated that they aren't planning on releasing loads of content. With me so far? Now, if you aren't going to release loads of content then trying to create narrow concepts classes is not a good thing. You to create more open classes that allow people to create loads of different concepts out of each class like you can with the fighter. Now if they are going to heavily increase the output of material then I could see wanting to create a separate class for each and every concept you can think of.

Doesn't make sense in a light release game.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Can't we have both though.

2 generic "fill in the flavor" subclasses
2-5 concept "built for the archetype" subclasses

Because as is, not every flavor of fighter works as the class is built to be generic.

You can't make a brawler fighter. You have to dip for Monk levels (meaning you can't use armor, shields, or martial weapon) or take the Tavern Brawler feat (which is mostly wasted as a fighter as it is weaker than fighter weapons and thus only works when you can't use your weapons).

You can't make a gladiator fighter as fighter lack Unarmed Defense, so you'll have to dip barbarian or monk for that and this messes with your ability scores and adjusts your PC's flavor.

etc etc.

Also other classes lack generic subclass. Every rogue for the sages, hermits, nobles, urchins, and criminals are either shifty burglars, trained killers, or partial illusionists. Every sorcerer has a dragon greatgrandpappy, got really unlucky, or born blessed by the storms.

The paladin's design was probably best. You have the mostly generic Devotion oath and the flavorful Ancient, Oathbreaker, and Vengeance oaths.

You know they aren't going to create a subclass for everything under the sun so it's rather pointless to make this argument. Sure they class can't cover everything but it does cover a lot more now than if Mike gets a hold of it.