Terminology: Can Subclasses Please Be a Thing?

[Minigiant]

To explain it another way: The way the game is currently designed, the Fighter class represents a general concept, and then through a combination of background, theme, and class feature choices, you can choose what specific kind of fighter you want to be.

I think that is where the problem starts. The fighter is a general concept. It is not the general warrior.

The fighter (for several editions) is an expertly trained warrior, is very comfortable all sorts of armor, and has some sort of mastery of several weapons based martial arts.

The Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian aesthetically feel like "specific kinds of fighter," so the aesthetics of the design would have them as backgrounds, themes, and/or class feature choices. The problem is, for a variety of reasons (summarized below), some of them can't fit into those slots (though some of them can, and should). Therefore, if they are separate classes, I feel it would be best to describe those classes explicitly as being "specific kinds of fighter."

With the above definition, Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian are not "specific kinds of fighter". They are special kinds of warrior.

The Ranger is a warrior of necessity. He walks the parts of the world where combat is unavoidable as he is either protecting an area, defending himself or allies, or is actively hunting hostile prey. The only thing a ranger and fighter have in common is that they use weapons and are good at using them.

The Barbarian is warrior of instinct and emotion. Many are not formally trained and substitute rage and fury for technique. The only thing a barbarian and fighter have in common is that they use weapons and are good at using them.

etc etc.

So unless all you define a fighter as is someone who "use weapons and are good at using them", the other classes are not special types of fighter.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

The Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian aesthetically feel like "specific kinds of fighter,"

Yes. Since the Fighter concept is as broad as it is (and ranger, paladin, etc. as narrow as they are), it's hard to think of them as anything other than "fighter, but specifically X kind of fighter." Same goes for Rogue and Assassin (though it's looking like Assassin will be a scheme choice for Rogues, which I totally support).

So what benefit does using the term mean? What mechanical function does a subclass describe?

Literally none. It's a purely terminological distinction to explain (e.g.) why the general fighter and specific "fighter, but X" exist at the same decision point.

Maybe it's me, but I'm really not getting convinced here. I don't see the Paladin as "a Fighter but different" when I'm making a Paladin. Same goes for an Assassin vs a Rogue.

To me, a Fighter isn't just a [race] with martial skills. A wizard isn't just a [race] with magic. When I think of of Cleric, I think of all the flavor that implies, and what it is in its own right. I do the same for Druid. They are separate to me, not occupying the same space.

The same goes for races. And so, I support making the distinctions as such: races all get their own name and write-up (Drow, not Elf: Drow), and classes all get their own write-up (Ranger, not Fighter: Ranger). Maybe I'm missing the big upside to this in your mind, because my mind doesn't lump Druids in with Clerics, and Paladins in with Fighters? Just like races, they're very different beasts to me, within the fiction, and that is more than enough to justify them getting their own class. As always, play what you like

 

[Boarstorm]

If it's just a label, why does it matter?

I'll go one further and ask why have two bits of special lingo (base class, subclass) when one (class) will do?

It's needless complication.

 

[mlund]

Something should be a subclass or a class variant / theme when it has no niche between more than one of the anchor classes - fighter, rogue, magic-user, or cleric.

Ranger can be a class pitching a small tent between the rogue and the fighter (warriors and skill specialists). The paladin does likewise between the cleric and fighter (divine power and warrior). Bards are pitched between the rogue and the wizard (skills and arcane magic). Small tent classes should have a limited number of unique variants and themes compared to anchor classes, and no sub-classes of their own.

A barbarians, slayers, cavaliers, defenders, etc. are themes or subclasses of fighter. Druids are a cleric subclass. Sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks are sub-classes of magic-user. Beguiler, evoker, war mage, and wild mage are all themes or variants.

- Marty Lund

 

[Doug McCrae]

Does this mean that the fighter doesn't get to have any special or unique features, that aren't shared with the ranger and paladin? If so, why would anyone want to play a fighter? I assume you're not also advocating higher minimum attributes for the subclasses, which was the case in 1e.

Also, the subclass notion in 1e was what led to the ranger being a 'tank who can track' - he could wear platemail, even though that really isn't appropriate for a wilderness scout.

With the above definition, Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian are not "specific kinds of fighter". They are special kinds of warrior.

I agree, the 2e system made more sense. The druid really isn't a subclass of the cleric, they're both varieties of priest.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think what we're failing to communicate is that you think "subclass" means "base class plus stuff;" whereas I think "subclass" means "mechanically and creatively similar to base class but not necessarily based on the exact same mechanics."

I'm not advocating a mechanical "subclass system."

Then I think subclass is the wrong word for what you want, unless fighter, paladin and ranger are all subclasses of the warrior class.

By 2e terminology, which I think makes more sense, there are no subclasses. Fighter, paladin and ranger are all classes within the warrior group.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There's barbarian in one (slightly clunky) feat. That's not the point of this thread, though. The point is that these classes can and probably should exist as classes (for traditional and mechanical reasons), but require some terminological explanation to justify why they're not themes.

If all there is to the barbarian is the berserker rage theme/feat, then the barbarian shouldn't be a class, it should just be a theme. What will make rangers and paladins classes will be having enough mechanical distinctiveness that they can't be built with just one theme. If it turns out that they don't have that, then they shouldn't be classes.

Terminology isn't a justification for anything. The point of terminology is to communicate accurately. If your terminology has been chosen to obscure rather to clarify, then it's bad terminology.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually I believe the terminology of subclasses is wrong.

I like thee way 3E did it. PC classes and NPC classes

PC classes are "subclasses" of NPC classes.

Warrior (Guy who uses weapons and armors)

• Fighter (Guy who uses all weapons and armors very well)
• Barbarian (Guy who uses weapons and rage)
• Ranger (Guy who uses weapons and natural skills)
• Paladin (Guy who uses weapons and divine power)
• Monk (Guy who uses exotic and unarmed weapons and "mysticism")
• Warlord (Guy who uses weapons, armors, and combat tactics)

Expert (Guy who uses skills)

• Rogue (Guy who uses many skills and sneak attacks)
• Monk (Guy who uses exotic and unarmed weapons and "mysticism")
• Ranger (Guy who uses weapons and natural skills)
• Bard (Guy who uses skills, song, and magic)
• Assassin (Guy who uses skills and assassination techniques)
• Warlock (Guy who uses skills and pact magic)

Adept (Guy who casts spells)

• Cleric (Guy who casts divine spells and channels divinity)
• Druid (Guy who casts primal or druidic spells and shapeshifts)
• Wizard (Guy who masters arcane spells)
• Sorcerer (Guy who was born with the ability to cast arcane spells)
• Warlock (Guy who uses skills and pact magic)
• Bard (Guy who uses skills, song, and magic)

etc
etc

 

[UngeheuerLich]

2e groupings may make a lot of sense.

As mike says: if classes are designed with overlap, then it may be useful. If thems are responsible for overlap, then rather not.

But as advancement is usually defined by class, I could perfectly see a reason why warrior, magic user, rogue and priest could use universal advancement tables.

 

[howandwhy99]

Why can't you do this for your game? That's my first question.

What's stopping you simply using a naming convention at your table?

What is the core game going to gain by implementing this structure?

What is lost if it does? Aren't we stuck in a smaller design space if every Fighter sub-class must take principle design mechanics from the core class? (I would think so - and hope so by my preferences)

My thinking is "groupings" help players pick options quickly as well as define the multiverse being played in. If "Red Wizard of Thay" is a subclass, then I understand that this is a term referring to characters existent in the campaign world. I expect that their abilities are going to be mechanically similar as well as having a common training background. If I met someone who was a Ranger claiming to be a Red Wizard of Thay, I could reliably comprehend that they were not - at least not like any kind that I had known up unto then.

My issue with removing core classes is they aren't as customizable through play. Sub-classes are too, everyone defines their ranger just a little bit differently, but overall the subclasses are the more defined role and narrower scopes. They define the setting more than "We have people who use magic, others who fight combats..." etc. Playing a core class means more opportunity to self define and even create one's own version of a subclass, if they chose to train others to be like them (rather than broadly as the core class).

EDIT: I could understand wanting to avoid Themes or Backgrounds. These are feat bundles or skill bundles, not classes. For everyone who doesn't include feats and skills the option your suggesting may be far more amenable.