I like and appreciate the ability to reflavour a class in some way. But I also like some mechanics to support my character and their chosen specialty, and some base fluff and options for people who aren't feeling inspired or need that extra boost.
It's all well and good to portray your fighter as a canny knight and say they're a canny knight, but if they cannot actually ride a horse or fight in armour better than anyone else then that element is lost.
Yes and no. The problem is with the armour bit. If you CAN wear armour better than everyone else... you've created a big imbalance, and it means that every fighter out there has to be a canny knight. If they are not, they are basically viewed as "sub-par" by their companions. This goes back to "feat tax" territory from 3e and 4e.
Being a better rider than everyone else is awesome. Being better at combat, however, is not good. All fighters should be good at combat. Some should just have slightly different areas of specialization.
I'd rather have the subclasses offer some lore and related mechanics. The subclasses should still be "big tent" ideas, like the "thief" or the "life cleric" where there's a lot of room to have variety in that role. But no flavour, a totally blank slate, gives nothing for people to work with.
I think we disagree here. Not a big deal. I'm fine with generic classes like the fighter having generic classes. It just means that if you want your guy to be unique, you look towards your background or race instead. Which is awesome.
Just because a mechanic didn't work in the past doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be attempted again.
We can agree that it's a warning sign though, right?
5e is filled with mechanics that did not work the first time but were refined and now function well.
The magic weapon argument doesn't work in this edition, where they're not necessary. If the player wants a weird weapon that's their choice and the game shouldn't remove an option because some people might make that choice poorly.
Sure, I'll give you that. But the problem is, if you allow weapon spec in the game, it basically forces everyone down that rabbit hole. Look at fighters in, say, pathfinder, where every fighter either goes TWF or power attack, and most take weapon spec as soon as possible.
It's a start. But if someone really wants to focus on shields, there's not a lot of options.
Personally, I think it's more than enough. You don't have as much abilities to spend on in 5th. That's a perk, not a bug. It means you can have some interesting characters without having to build them.
There's a lot of overlap between phalanx and legions. It mostly comes down to the size of the units. Really, Roman Legions were more flexible phalanxes.
No, not at all. Legions were grouped entirely differently, organized differently, and armed differently. They could move in difficult terrain because of their organizational structure, and didn't do what phalanxes did and fall apart on rough ground. Plus, while they were still vulnerable to the flank (all infantry is), they didn't instantly rout like the phalanx was prone to. Also, you could break a legion down into smaller and smaller groupings, and it'd still retain effectiveness. Your legion of 1000 men could, in theory, be broken down into ten units of 100 and still be able to work. And that unit of 100 could be broken into ten men of ten each, and those patrols would work.
A patrol of 10 phalanx soldiers does not work.
I've got an unfair advantage on you here. I have a LOT of books on military history of the ancient world. I realize you were just drawing an example out of the air, but you've hit my nerd hot zone, and I had to reply with gladius drawn.
Which is great when the fighter can take the feat, which might not be 6th or 8th level. And it doesn't make you a better rider, has nothing to do with lances, doesn't keep you in the saddle, or any number of other bonuses a mounted knight might have.
Fair enough. I'll give this to you.
So... really, you just don't want any new subclasses for the fighter.
Not at all. I just don't think they need to be oozing with flavour. There absolutely ARE fighter subtypes you can go with. A clerical fighter that's not a paladin clone (sort of like a divine eldritch knight). A medium armour skirmisher type. A mounted warrior.
None of these are tied to specific themes. A cleric clone could be an egyptian mameluk or a knights templar, for example. A medium armour skirmisher could be an english bowman or a roman legion. And a mounted warrior could be anything from a persian immortal to a classic knight.
A skilled players can work around any inherent flavour. Ignoring flavour really doesn't take any more work than making the flavour outright.
It can be a little trickier incorporating specific class features, but if you're reflavouring a subclass that you like anyway it's not a problem.
The problem is, not everyone is a skilled player. And it's better to just not have that flavour there to begin with. It stimulates the imagination more. I don't know if you ever played, say, BECMI, but even with a game where half the party were playing fighters, I always saw each fighter as being unique. Despite the fact that they were all mechanically very similar.
Same mechanics do not mean same flavour. But if you design flavour into those mechanics, and do your best to make the class flavourful, you'll tend to see the same character types crop up.
