Terminology: Can Subclasses Please Be a Thing?

[GX.Sigma]

In the early days of OD&D and 1e, we had these things called subclasses. If you don't know what those are, it basically means that, e.g., the Ranger is a special kind of Fighter, the Druid is a special kind of Cleric, the Assassin is a special kind of Rogue, the Illusionist is a special kind of Wizard. The subclasses got a full class writeup just like the base classes; it's just that they were explicitly called out as a special variety of the base classes.

I argue that this is a good idea that should be implemented in D&D Next.

Let me stress again that I'm not talking about demoting the Paladin to a theme, and I'm definitely not talking about having a Figher (Slayer), a Figher (Knight), and a Figher (Weaponmaster). I'm talking about having a nice long class list a la 3e, but some of them are defined as "a special kind of" another class.

This thread isn't even about the term "subclass" itself (as that has certain connotations), but just the idea of defining some classes as varieties of other classes.

Why? It allows classes to exist within the mechanical and flavorful definition of other classes. Why isn't a Ranger just a Fighter with wilderness skills? Why isn't a Paladin just a Fighter with divine powers? Why isn't a Barbarian just a Fighter who can rage? If they're defined as subclasses, the answer is that they are Fighters, they're just special varieties of Fighter.

I asked Mike Mearls via Twitter, and he said maybe.

So what do you think?

 

[BobTheNob]

I dont object to the concept, in fact I liked that there is variation.

But dont themes occupy this design space?

 

[GX.Sigma]

But dont themes occupy this design space?

The point is to be able to justify including Ranger, etc. as classes rather than themes.

 

[the Jester]

The point is to be able to justify including Ranger, etc. as classes rather than themes.

Do you feel we can't otherwise justify them as classes?

 

[BobTheNob]

The point is to be able to justify including Ranger, etc. as classes rather than themes.

Im pretty much at the point where I think they are justified (read the threads, assimilated the arguments, and voted from rangers as classes. Tick). But Im having trouble understanding how sub-classes are a separate concept from themes.

 

[Serendipity]

I don't object - or necessarily support this, as this is a nomenclature and organizational issue more than a mechanical issue, at least IMHO.

Why? It allows classes to exist within the mechanical and flavorful definition of other classes.

I am not sure what you mean by this though. Could you expand on this a bit?

 

[TerraDave]

to post cross poll (poll cross post? cross post poll?)

I could see this going either way. Though, to really, really nitpick, there are:

3E & 4E: all base classes

PF (and 3.5 implicit): a mix of "core" and bases classes, with core, more, well, core, but nothing is explicitly derivative.

2E: Class groups: ie paladin, fighter, and ranger are all warriors. (bards and thieves were both rogues).

1E: One class is a sub class of another, more "core" class.

BECMI (implied in OD&D, many later variations): Classes split off or gain variants...fighter becomes knight.

2E is probably most aesthetically pleasing...but the question I think this raises is: are there mechanical implications? Maybe all fighters, or warriors, use a d10 hit die and get a +1 to damage every 3 levels, all rogues use a d6 and get bonus skills. As an aside, I would have no problem with this approach.

 

[Minigiant]

No subclasses in the way you define them.

A Ranger is not a special kind of Fighter.
A Ranger is a special kind of warrior.
A Fighter is also a special kind of warrior.

WRONG- Fighter, Fighter (Ranger), Fighter (Paladin), Fighter (Barbarian)

RIGHT- Warrior, Warrior (Fighter), Warrior (Ranger), Warrior (Paladin), Warrior (Barbarian)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It would also help to divorce the ranger from the rogue. A fighter/rogue he is not.

 

[hafrogman]

I find the term subclass to be annoyingly vague. It gets brought up a lot, but as a word, it's by an large meaningless. What does it MEAN to be a subclass as opposed to a base class? Even in the editions where it was used, there was never any clear pattern to how it was applied. Different mechanics might be shared or not between the different class umbrellas.

So what benefit does using the term mean? What mechanical function does a subclass describe? In the last thread I saw on this topic, the only answer I got was as a limit to multiclassing. You couldn't multiclass fighter/ranger because they were both warriors. Is that a specific limit we want? Is the term subclass instrumental in implementing that limit?

So rather than telling me you want the term subclass to return, why don't you say what you want it to actually DO in terms of the game and its mechanics.

In 5e as we've seen it, classes don't actually define a whole lot. Should classes and subclass share:

Weapon and armor proficiencies? Do bards get more weapons/armor than rogues?
Hit points/dice? If they squish HD as they were discussing and wizards become d6, are they a rogue subclass?
Class abilities? Do assassins get rogue schemes plus more? If so, why be a base class?