D&D 5E Strangely enough, theres very little info about classes in 5e....

[Remathilis]

And each of these 12 Classes will have multiple subclasses as well, correct?

Bards = Colleges
Barbarians = Totems(?)
Clerics = Domains
Druids = Circles
Fighters = Fighting Styles (?)
Monks = Monastic Traditions
Paladins = Oaths
Rangers = Favored Enemies
Rogue = Schemes (?)
Sorcerer = Bloodlines
Warlock = Pacts
Wizards = Schools

 

[1of3]

Barbarians = Totems(?)
Fighters = Fighting Styles (?)

Those are called Barbarian Paths and Martial Paths respectively in the last Playtest.

Fighting Style is an class feature for Fighter, Paladin and Ranger and, yes, it does offer a choice, too.

Totems are selecteable features in one of the Barbarian Paths called Totem Warrior, which like the Monk of 4 Elements and the Battlemaster Fighter is not a single subclass but more like a collection of powers.

 

[Remathilis]

Those are called Barbarian Paths and Martial Paths respectively in the last Playtest.

Fighting Style is an class feature for Fighter, Paladin and Ranger and, yes, it does offer a choice, too.

Totems are selecteable features in one of the Barbarian Paths called Totem Warrior, which like the Monk of 4 Elements and the Battlemaster Fighter is not a single subclass but more like a collection of powers.

Thanks. I was working off memory (hence the ?)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nature Knight would have been 1st ed. They could where heavy armour back then and had nature type skills. 2nd ed turned them into a dual wielding skirmisher and 3rd ed reinforced that theme. 4E really turned them into a fighter type class with dubious links to nature really. Ranger as a wilderness type though has had a stronger theme than the Bard which has really changed drastically in every edition.

Did anyone seriously see them as a Nature Knight in 1E, though? I ask because I've seen quite a number of 1E Rangers, including two extremely iconic D&D characters, Drizzt and Tanis, and none of them was remotely a "Nature Knight" - rather they were skirmish-y, lighter-armour-wearing types.

Calling the 4E version a "Fighter-type" is pretty odd, imo. They were no more a "Fighter-type" there than any other Striker, and had plenty of Nature-oriented abilities - particularly in their Utilities. As the edition wore on, they gained more nature-magic-y abilities, too (there were quite a lot of types of Ranger by the end of 4E!).

I dunno if I can agree that the Bard has changed as drastically as you claim. It changed drastically from 1E to 2E (but much less so if you look at the Dragon version of the Bard, which seems to be where the 2E one comes from), but every other edition has kept it as a sort of leader-y type who is decent with weapons, wears light/medium armour, casts some wizard spells (gaining some cleric-ish ones in 3E and 4E), and inspires or boosts the party by song, music, or the like.

 

[Bluenose]

Well, the ranger is, in my mind, more of a skirmisher (at least since 3e). This knight and the warden of 4e are standing in the front line. In 4e, the warden is a defender and the green knight used heavy armor.

The Green Knight, Blackguard, and Paladin are "knights"/"champions" of their faith - something nature-y, something evil, something good respectively. They fight in the open, displaying their faith's power where everyone can see it. The Ranger, Holy Assassin and Avenger (perhaps) are the "Sneaks" of their faith - same faiths as the knight-types. They do their job in the shadows, removing enemies who can't be got rid of any other way. At least, that's how I'd do it.

 

[fjw70]

Did anyone seriously see them as a Nature Knight in 1E, though? I ask because I've seen quite a number of 1E Rangers, including two extremely iconic D&D characters, Drizzt and Tanis, and none of them was remotely a "Nature Knight" - rather they were skirmish-y, lighter-armour-wearing types.

Calling the 4E version a "Fighter-type" is pretty odd, imo. They were no more a "Fighter-type" there than any other Striker, and had plenty of Nature-oriented abilities - particularly in their Utilities. As the edition wore on, they gained more nature-magic-y abilities, too (there were quite a lot of types of Ranger by the end of 4E!).

I dunno if I can agree that the Bard has changed as drastically as you claim. It changed drastically from 1E to 2E (but much less so if you look at the Dragon version of the Bard, which seems to be where the 2E one comes from), but every other edition has kept it as a sort of leader-y type who is decent with weapons, wears light/medium armour, casts some wizard spells (gaining some cleric-ish ones in 3E and 4E), and inspires or boosts the party by song, music, or the like.

Tanis was a fighter. Riverwind was the ranger.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Tanis was a fighter. Riverwind was the ranger.

Fair enough. I tried to look it up and could only find him statted as a mixed ranger/fighter. Still, Riverwind too is a light-armour skirmisher-type, not a "Nature Knight". I'm surprised I couldn't find more info on either online. I know the fans of Dragonlance are mostly an older generation, but it's kind of odd.

 

[Halivar]

Did anyone seriously see them as a Nature Knight in 1E, though?

I saw them as Dúnedain. I thought they telegraphed that pretty transparently, too. They were not men of the wood, per se; but rather wardens of human civilization embedded so deep in the farthest forest marches for so many generations that they pick up secrets of the fey and forest. Having full access to arms and armor reinforces this, IMHO.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I saw them as Dúnedain. I thought they telegraphed that pretty transparently, too. They were not men of the wood, per se; but rather wardens of human civilization embedded so deep in the farthest forest marches for so many generations that they pick up secrets of the fey and forest. Having full access to arms and armor reinforces this, IMHO.

???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dúnedain

Surely you mean Rangers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_(Middle-earth)

That seems right, but I wouldn't call those guys "Nature Knights" any day of the week. Or knights of any kind. Warriors, sure.

 

[fjw70]

Fair enough. I tried to look it up and could only find him statted as a mixed ranger/fighter. Still, Riverwind too is a light-armour skirmisher-type, not a "Nature Knight". I'm surprised I couldn't find more info on either online. I know the fans of Dragonlance are mostly an older generation, but it's kind of odd.

Your point still stands. Riverwind was a barbarian tribesman and not a nature knight.