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

[GrumpyGamer]

I think that the real failure here is one of backgrounds not adding enough flavor to characters. I preferred the play test where backgrounds had the equivalent of a single class ability. If you wanted to play a knight much of the flavor should come from the background and not the complex vs simple choice of fighter sub-class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For me, I would have liked them to use Champion = Warrior and Battlemaster = Warlord.

Ouch. The Battlemaster falls so far short of the 4e fighter, it's hard to express what a profound dis-service that'd be doing the Warlord.


Even so, I can't fault the sense of it:

War -> Battle
Lord -> Master

 

[neobolts]

Ouch. The Battlemaster falls so far short of the 4e fighter, it's hard to express what a profound dis-service that'd be doing the Warlord.


Even so, I can't fault the sense of it:

War -> Battle
Lord -> Master

The name change was a must once they made the internal decision to abandon having a drill sergeant yell at your open wounds to heal them up. (I kid! I played a 4e Warlord and enjoyed it immensely.)

 

[arjomanes]

Here's what I think should have happened (not that I mind how it actually went down - 5e is great in my opinion as-is):

The Basic D&D book, including character creation, is included in the Starter Set. In that book, they include the basic general Fighter (all 20 levels). They also publish in that book the basic Rogue, the basic generalist Cleric (with a list of deities), and the basic generalist Wizard. These would be the simple versions of each of the classes, and they wouldn't have any other name than their class. There are no subclasses mentioned; they gain class abilities and advanced class abilities. This is the basic starter set, and all you need to play the game. This product appeals to new players, casual players, and old school players. It's marketed as the D&D game.

Then in the optional advanced PHB, they introduce the idea of subclasses. Subclasses replace the advanced abilities of the class. Only the new subclasses appear in the PHB: PHB fighter subclasses gain maneuvers, PHB rogues gain tricks, PHB clerics gain new domain abilities tied to their deity, PHB wizards gain schools and abilities tied to their school. Each subclass is specific and flavorful, and has more complex abilities. The expanded classes, feats, and multi-classing also appear in the PHB as normal.

With each AP, WotC publishes some new flavorful Basic and Advanced subclasses that complement the story, along with spells or races. For example, the Basic Knight or Cleric of Bahamut could fit with the Tyranny of Dragons.

 

[Minigiant]

I was thinking the Champion was so much like the (Essentials) "Slayer," and that it fits the "I just kill things" connotation better. Warrior is decidedly generic, and was a 3.x NPC class.

"Champion" in my head feels too special. Like a prodigy, the rare stock, or the blessed. Most fighters can't just level up and be the champion. You gotta win the game to be a champion. Win the genetic lottery, the socioeconomic lottery, or a god's favor. Random dudes can't be champions. Everyone doesn't get a belt, much less a tittle shot. Only special people get to be champions. The rest are just warriors.

/promo

*rolls Charimsa (Performance) check for Temporary HP from boosted morale*

Where's the Heel Wrester subclass, Mearls?

I doubt it was the two non-casting fighter-sub classes that distracted them from coming up with more - I'm guessing it was the 30 or so magic-using sub-classes that absorbed much of their attention.

One way to avoid spreading focus is, of course, to narrow it. Have more than 0 non-caster classes and more than 5 non-caster sub-classes, and the two non-casting fighter sub-classes won't have so much ground to cover.

The magic favoritism of the fanbase of D&D really hold the game back.

Almost 80 pages of spells but the game doesn't even have bucklers? There's a gladiator and sailor background but there's no arm guards, cestus/gauntlets, and the trident has the same stats as a spear? Between the fanbase rejecting every other fighter option in the playtest and magic related stuff taking up 1/3 the book, it would be impossible to a fit all the fighter archetypes in the PHB fighter and do 90% of them justice.

 

[ninjayeti]

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.

I totally agree that "champion" and "battlemaster" do not convey the sense of what a character is about the way some other subclass names do. But point me to the rule that says you can only describe your character using proper game terminology. Does the lack of an official "Knight" subclass prohibit me from describing my fighter as a knight ... or an archer ... or a tank ... or a duelist, or anything else that describes my character more specifically than battlemaster?

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.

Well if there was a fighter subclass that made you the greatest swordsman in the world at 3rd level it would be pretty OP. Everyone in the party would probably play that subclass which would result in some funny party conflicts. "No Sir Prentis, you are not the greatest swordsman in the world. I know this for a fact because... I am the greatest swordsman in the world!"

Seriously, mechanics only go so far too - all the rules options in the world aren't going to make a you Inigo Montoya at 3rd level.

 

[Minigiant]

Well if there was a fighter subclass that made you the greatest swordsman in the world at 3rd level it would be pretty OP. Everyone in the party would probably play that subclass which would result in some funny party conflicts. "No Sir Prentis, you are not the greatest swordsman in the world. I know this for a fact because... I am the greatest swordsman in the world!"

Seriously, mechanics only go so far too - all the rules options in the world aren't going to make a you Inigo Montoya at 3rd level.

You don't have to be the best swordsman at level 3.

But would it hurt to have a swordsman subclass that gives you +Xd6 damage with daggers, shortswords, longswords, rapiers, scimatars, and greatswords? Then another for the axes with another spin like flat damage. And another for the bludgeoning weapons with a third spin?

 

[Quickleaf]

The magic favoritism of the fanbase of D&D really hold the game back.

Almost 80 pages of spells but the game doesn't even have bucklers? There's a gladiator and sailor background but there's no arm guards, cestus/gauntlets, and the trident has the same stats as a spear? Between the fanbase rejecting every other fighter option in the playtest and magic related stuff taking up 1/3 the book, it would be impossible to a fit all the fighter archetypes in the PHB fighter and do 90% of them justice.

In the final analysis, I agree this is the issue-behind-the-issue.

They have limited page count, of course. They decide in the PHB to devote a ton of space to spells, give cleric 7 sub-classes, and wizards 8 sub-classes.

Fighters - who come in so many various shades as folks have pointed out - get 3 sub-classes. Rogues too.

I'm assuming these are decisions based on market research - IOW that most of the D&D players out there are interested in using magic.

So working with this (assumed) restriction, the way they made fighter sub-classes and almost purely mechanical distinctions makes sense. They just didn't have the space to write up 5-7 fighter sub-classes each with their own identity.

Which is a shame, because it's quite possible to write fighter sub-classes that strike the balance between identity, adaptability, and mechanics.

Personally, I think the Fighter and Rogue could both use 5-7 sub-classes. That way the CORE 4 classes each have a whole bundle of archetypes empowered in the rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm assuming these are decisions based on market research - IOW that most of the D&D players out there are interested in using magic.

Heh. Of course, that could be because casters have had tons of options throughout the game's history, and are generally the best choice to have an impact in play.

"Champion" in my head feels too special. Like a prodigy, the rare stock, or the blessed. Most fighters can't just level up and be the champion. You gotta win the game to be a champion.

'Just leveling up' to 2nd is no mean feat.

Win the genetic lottery, the socioeconomic lottery, or a god's favor. Random dudes can't be champions.

The 'standard' array does give you much better stats than the 3d6 bell-curve, and PC starting gear is worth more than a real medieval peasant would see in his lifetime.

The magic favoritism of the fanbase of D&D really hold the game back.

Almost 80 pages of spells but the game doesn't even have bucklers? There's a gladiator and sailor background but there's no arm guards, cestus/gauntlets, and the trident has the same stats as a spear? Between the fanbase rejecting every other fighter option in the playtest and magic related stuff taking up 1/3 the book, it would be impossible to a fit all the fighter archetypes in the PHB fighter and do 90% of them justice.

There is a profound double-standard, yes, and it's been with the game a long time. There's no reason for it, it's just one of those peculiar oddities that rises to the level of an institution over time because no one ever quite puts forth the effort to challenge it....

I totally agree that "champion" and "battlemaster" do not convey the sense of what a character is about the way some other subclass names do. But point me to the rule that says you can only describe your character using proper game terminology.

Nowhere. Your Champion fighter can be a librarian, if you want, your Wizard can be a time-traveler who throws 22nd century grenades and 35th century party favors instead of spells. But, there is some merit to the idea that the name of the class or sub-class evoke what it's meant to be. Fighters are good at fighting, and nothing else. The name fits. Champions are not particularly better at fighting, nor are they even as good athletes as anyone with actual proficiency in Athletics, they have no special relationship to persons or causes or ideals they may be 'Championing,' no features that help them protect those they champion, nothing, really, to live up to or even suggest the name.

Does the lack of an official "Knight" subclass prohibit me from describing my fighter as a knight ... or an archer ... or a tank ... or a duelist, or anything else that describes my character more specifically than battlemaster?

Not at all. Really, the Noble background does a lot more to make you a Knight than the fighter class, you could be a Paladin or Cleric, for instance, and, with a Noble background and the right code of behavior, be every bit as much a Knight.

 

[Quickleaf]

Fighters are good at fighting, and nothing else

*wince*