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

[Celtavian]

I somewhat agree with Mike. There isn't much story flavor to the fighter subclasses. I prefer more story flavor with my subclasses. Most of the other subclasses have more role-play flavor than the fighter subclasses. You could make any of the fighter subclasses with nearly any idea for a fighter. It would be nice if the subclasses had more flavor to develop into a living, breathing character.

 

[Zaran]

He had to say something. He just picked a topic so tiny and unimportant so as to not cause a bunch of arguments. I mean regretting that they didn't name the fighter subclasses well? That's as soft as he could get.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As I tried to bring up over in the 'Battle Master sub-subclasses' thread... what could probably be useful to some people are actual flavorful "builds" of certain types of fighters (taking all of the Fighter abilities, Battle Master maneuvers, and Feats into account) that you could take for your PC. This is the kind of thing that might be a good EN5IDER article or something.

So for instance... if a player wanted to build a samurai type of fighter: what are the two or three primary ability scores to focus on? What Fighting Style should they take? What five BM maneuvers are most emblematic? Which feats should a samurai have? Likewise, you want to make a pit fighter or gladiator that uses a spear and net: what Fighting Style, maneuvers, and feats might this character take to best exemplify this type of fighting character?

Is it necessary for these "builds" to be made? No, not for everyone, obviously. But if someone really wants to make a Three Musketeers type of swordfighter but doesn't know exactly the way to go about it... having a sub-subclass 'duelist' build with flavorful story attached that someone has put together to use might be a nice thing that some players might like to have.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm still kinda upset there's no generic rogue.

My favorite rogue was a doctor/barber who ran a clinic in a city slum. He had pride in not being a thief or assassin but his knowledge of humaniod anatomy, excellent hair, and decent physique were great help to the party.

"I'm sorry, sir. During my decades of learning the anatomies of two dozen beings, I never had time to study common burglary."
"I'm no assassin, gentleorc. I am trained to keep people alive. The best I can do is fail at my job in a shameful manner."

But, overall I agree with Mearls. They were so focused on getting the simple and complex fighter working, they missed so much.


- Flavorful Martial Archetypes (knights, brawlers, gladiators, warriors scholars)
- Other Mechanical Archetypes (ki fighter, BO9S fighter, at-will-power fighter)
- Exotic weapons... that work (trident, net, bolas, chakram, flails, chains)
- Exotic armors... (BUCKLERS, arm guards, partial armor, heavy shield)
- Flavorful Fighting styles (mariners, caviliers, skirmisher, thuggery)

Too much focus on mechanics.

 

[Rocksome]

I love the fact that a fighter is a blank slate as a class. It's traditionally the most open ended class, being someone who is good at fighting. If they'd attempted to create the subclasses as Shock Trooper, Fencer, Phalanx Soldier, etc they would have needed dozens of flavoured classes to cover even a fraction of the archetypal fighters.

I like the fact that the subclasses are distinct purely on a mechanical level, so I can draw on the vast array of fighter powers to build the PC I want, instead of it being proscribed for me.

 

[TwoSix]

Wait, wait.

What are the fighter subclasses again?

 

[Jester David]

That's a good thing. Loose mechanics (like the fighter) means broad interpretations. It's like in older editions, where you could have the same character class/race combination and still have one character be a pirate, another a barbarian raider, and a third a canny knight. The second you tie mechanics to flavour, you're stuck there. Which is fine if someone wants that flavour, but the second someone wants to cover something else, they're hooped. The fighter SHOULD be broad, and lacking in specific flavour.
They can opt in. Feats exist, after all. And as I say above, I don't think the champion SHOULD have that flavour. It's just a mechanical "this is the simple fighter option. Have fun." This is a great design aspect of 5e - you can pick your level of complexity, and then flavour to taste. SOO much better than, say, Pathfinder, which requires a lot of rules-ese to get the flavour you want.

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.

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.

Sure. But then you get to the point where "I'm an expert in the falchion. I'm the only fighter in the group. I specialize in a weird weapon... as the GM, you either award us common magical weapons that I can't use, or only give us magical weapons that I can use that threaten the believability of the world".

We've had weapon-masters before. They seldom work well in -any- edition of D&D. They basically turn into a feat tax system, where you either specialize in a weapon to stay at "par", or you skip doing that and fall behind.

Just because a mechanic didn't work in the past doesn't mean it couldn't or shouldn't be attempted again. 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.

It exists, and it's called the "protection" fighter style. It's pretty awesome.

It's a start. But if someone really wants to focus on shields, there's not a lot of options.

Also, that's not what a phalanx is. You're thinking a legion style.
The phalanx really didn't have much to do with shields. It was more about creating a wall of pikes that made a frontal assault impossible. Which was why the phalanx was so vulnerable to the flanks and rear, and why the people that used it, such as Alexander the Great, wound up relying instead on heavy cavalry.

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.
Plus, it was just a name I pulled out quickly for an example and stuck with, the idea of an organized fighter with a shield who acts like a wall for his allies.

There's a feat for that.

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.

And that.
That's a barbarian. And I'm glad the fighter doesn't compete with the role of another class.
Fighter with the Entertainer background, which makes perfect sense. If you want the charisma bonuses, make him or her a battlemaster. But then, in 4e, we complained about people using whatever ability score they wanted to modify physical attacks...
Both rogues and monks do that as their schtick. And again, I'm glad the fighter doesn't step on other classes' toes. Also, there's a new fighting style that does that as well.

So... really, you just don't want any new subclasses for the fighter.

And I disagree. It's better to have a class that's written clearly and concisely, and let the players build their flavour off that. This is MUCH easier than trying to remove the flavour written in and then modifying for your own purposes. It's going to be a lot easier to make a samurai in 5e right now, as written, than it would be to use a fighter in, say, pathfinder to do the same thing.

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 trick is people who are newer or less skilled at adding flavour. Without the inherent flavour the class is flat and bland, just a generic "Bob the fighter". If the subclass had a dash of flavour then there'd be something for the DM and other players to work with or something the player could build on, but right now that's not provided.
It's a barrier to entry. A "you must be ----> creative to ride the fighter".

 

[redrick]

I love the fact that a fighter is a blank slate as a class. It's traditionally the most open ended class, being someone who is good at fighting. If they'd attempted to create the subclasses as Shock Trooper, Fencer, Phalanx Soldier, etc they would have needed dozens of flavoured classes to cover even a fraction of the archetypal fighters.

I like the fact that the subclasses are distinct purely on a mechanical level, so I can draw on the vast array of fighter powers to build the PC I want, instead of it being proscribed for me.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. Classes like Warlock need a lot of flavor because, well, what is a warlock exactly? Players don't necessarily have a whole lot of fictional archetypes to draw on that fit the character build, so it helps to have some provided by the PHB.

The Fighter, on the other hand, fits as an archetype for a HUGE array of fantasy (and non-fantasy) stories. It doesn't need to be loaded with flavor, because players will probably be able to look back on something they read or watched in the last year and say, "well, that character could work as a fighter."

I don't think Mike Mearls is necessarily wrong on this, because it's really hard to tell what the team would have come up with if they had taken a more flavorful route with the fighter subclasses. Quite possibly, it would have had changes that rippled out into other areas of the game. 5e seems to have been walking a lot of razor edges in terms of balancing simplicity and complexity, flavor and open-ness, etc. I also know that Mearls wasn't the only voice in creating D&D, and just because Mearls thinks another (undiscovered) solution might have been better, doesn't mean that the team, as a whole, failed in their execution of the game. There were many authors to D&D, and Mearls has said in the past that the team frequently chose to abandon ideas that he was fond of, in large part due to feedback from the fans playtesting the game. Maybe this would have been one of those areas as well.

(I'll attempt to use a film-making analogy, though the analogies are often not so apt when comparing to RPG design, but it's the creative process I know best. When a director finishes a "director's cut" of a film, a lot of people watch that film and give notes and critiques. Sometimes, the director agrees with those critiques and tackles them with relish, but other times, the critiques are in conflict with what the director wants. These can come from anywhere — producers, distributors, editor, close friends, what have you. The director makes a case for her own solution, but the director is sometimes overruled. In this case, a director might just say, "well, serves you right," and execute the letter of the note. Usually, however, the director takes the external note and goes about figuring out a way to incorporate it into her own vision for the film, possibly with radical effects that ripple through the rest of the film. At the end of the day, the director might still say, "I wish we'd done it my way," but the final product is still her's, as much as a film made by many can ever be authored by one individual. This push and pull, and response to outside criticisms, limitations and edicts, is an essential part of the creative process, and often, though not always, makes for better films.)

 

[ninjayeti]

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.

If the issue is that you want mechanics to support your concept, then why not work with the existing mechanics? To use your example: if a canny knight is mechanically a fighter that wears armor more effectively and fights better mounted then isn't that covered by the Defense fighting style (+1 AC while wearing armor) and the mounted combatant feat?

Reading through this thread it seems like 95% of the subclasses people are asking for could already be covered with existing backgrounds, fighting styles, and/or feats and the rest could be done through muticlassing. It strikes me as a recipe for rules bloat if we are creating a bunch of new subclasses that replicate things we already have existing rules for. (Yes, most races don't get feats until 4th level, but most subclasses don't kick in until 3rd level so I don't see this as a game breaking difference).

If the issue is Mearls' original point that the fighter subclasses lack flavor then I am not sure how a "knight" built using existing background/feats and fighting styles is any less flavorful than one that has an official "knight" subclass.

But no flavour, a totally blank slate, gives nothing for people to work with.

Actually a blank slate gives people the MOST to work with. Giving people a few cookie cutter subclasses is not going to produce interesting characters. Giving creative players some tools and room to work will.

It's a start. But if someone really wants to focus on shields, there's not a lot of options.
....

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.

The issues you raise here seem to be more about wanting more rules options for the fighter class. Which is totally fair - but is different than saying the fighter subclasses lack flavor, which is the original point of the post.

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.

Totally true. But Mearls' original point was that the fighter subclasses need a stronger flavor and identity. If your point is that people will ignore that flavor of the new subclasses and just use the additional mechanics then you are not really solving the problem Mearls raises - your are just asking for more rules options for fighters.

The trick is people who are newer or less skilled at adding flavour. Without the inherent flavour the class is flat and bland, just a generic "Bob the fighter". If the subclass had a dash of flavour then there'd be something for the DM and other players to work with or something the player could build on, but right now that's not provided.
It's a barrier to entry. A "you must be ----> creative to ride the fighter".

Fair point. But are a bunch of new subclasses the only solution to this issue? Couldn't you just include a bunch of fighter archetypes with suggested builds for new players? (E.g. "If you want your fighter to be a scout, put your highest score in Dex, take the Outlander background and the Archery fighting style. At 6th level take the Sharpshooter feat.")

 

[Jester David]

If the issue is that you want mechanics to support your concept, then why not work with the existing mechanics? To use your example: if a canny knight is mechanically a fighter that wears armor more effectively and fights better mounted then isn't that covered by the Defense fighting style (+1 AC while wearing armor) and the mounted combatant feat?

Reading through this thread it seems like 95% of the subclasses people are asking for could already be covered with existing backgrounds, fighting styles, and/or feats and the rest could be done through muticlassing. It strikes me as a recipe for rules bloat if we are creating a bunch of new subclasses that replicate things we already have existing rules for. (Yes, most races don't get feats until 4th level, but most subclasses don't kick in until 3rd level so I don't see this as a game breaking difference).

If the issue is Mearls' original point that the fighter subclasses lack flavor then I am not sure how a "knight" built using existing background/feats and fighting styles is any less flavorful than one that has an official "knight" subclass.



Actually a blank slate gives people the MOST to work with. Giving people a few cookie cutter subclasses is not going to produce interesting characters. Giving creative players some tools and room to work will.



The issues you raise here seem to be more about wanting more rules options for the fighter class. Which is totally fair - but is different than saying the fighter subclasses lack flavor, which is the original point of the post.



Totally true. But Mearls' original point was that the fighter subclasses need a stronger flavor and identity. If your point is that people will ignore that flavor of the new subclasses and just use the additional mechanics then you are not really solving the problem Mearls raises - your are just asking for more rules options for fighters.



Fair point. But are a bunch of new subclasses the only solution to this issue? Couldn't you just include a bunch of fighter archetypes with suggested builds for new players? (E.g. "If you want your fighter to be a scout, put your highest score in Dex, take the Outlander background and the Archery fighting style. At 6th level take the Sharpshooter feat.")

The catch with relying on feats is it spreads out the option. Rather than a simple "take this, it's obvious by the name" you need to make two or three choices that are unclear and then a feat in a different part of the book and a skill you might not have realized you needed to take at character creation.

And as I said earlier, when you sit down at a table with an evoker wizard, thief rogue, and life cleric you have a good idea what all those characters are and can do. It doesn't matter if the evoker is a wizard with a thick grimoire, a human who parlays with elemental spirits for power, an angelic being in the form of a human, or a defiler that sucks the life energy of plants to power their magic. But there's certainly room to do all those, and that can be explored in play, but you know what to expect.
When you say battle master fighter you could be heavily armoured or a swashbuckler or have a giant sword, or anything. It's not a useful description. It could just as easily be the dnkgduhdkghdb fighter, opposed to the more simple yruyeryewr fighter.

For example, someone wants to make the archetypal knight, what subclass should they take? It doesn't matter. It's not clear. Their choice isn't any easier. When someone makes a wizard, what they want to do in the game leads them to their subclass choice. When someone says "I wanna blow things up" then you point them to evocation, but if they want to be more tricky you go to illusion or enchantment. No detailed reading of the subclass is needed. When someone makes a fighter, the choice of "I want to be a great knight" or "I want to use a spear like the Oberyn Martell" or "I want to take the hits like a boss" then you need to read and re-read the options.
Similarly, reflavouring only goes so far. Someone wants to make a Madmartigan or Indigo Montoya and be great with a sword. Saying "great, just pretend you're the best swordsman in the land" isn't as satisfying as having something, anything to make that actually true.

When you're walking a new player through character creation, with every other subclass you ask "what do you want to do?" With the fighter you don't ask that but instead ask "how do you want to do what you want to do?" Which isn't very easy or intuitive...