One common discussion of the D&D community is on the role of classes and subclasses. There is a lot of discussion around it.
Is X a subclass of Y or is X isn't own class with the subclass of Z?
However there is a part of the discuss very often skipped over.
Which one should get the defining features?
The Parent Class: Warrior.
The Child Class: Ranger
The Subclass: Beastmaster
The Parent Class: Priest
The Child Class: Cleric
The Subclass: War Cleric.
The Parent Class: Magic User
The Child Class: Sorcerer
The Subclass: Favored Soul.
"Well X should be a subclass of Y". Often fans don't discuss what that means.
For example. "Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are subclasses of Fighting Man". Well those three child classes have little in common. Martial weapons and extra attacks in most editions. There if you slide class features to the Fighting Man subclass, you greatly weaken the influence and power of features that make Barbarian feel barbaric or Paladin feel paladiny. And you mostly kill any chance of making the grandchild subclass even work or appear
Shifting the power to the parent child has similar effects. Look at 5e, the Warrior classes really have little in common. And Many subclasses give martial weapons, extra attacks, and bonus ho. So the classification is most useless. One the other hand, subclasses often lack the design space to truly display aspects of their story. This is how many of the more disappointing subclasses received their sad faces.
Then if you keep moving down the line, making space for the grand subclass really is making the previous 2 classifications meaningless. You really are starting to create new, fully disconnected "classes". Going hard on the Alchemy, Dragon Magic, Green Knight, Echo Swordsmanship, or Assassination can really make the final product look unrelated. If your Thief has Sneak attack, your Assassin has Death Attack, your Trickster has Trick Attack, your Scoundrel has Backstab, your Minstrel has Vicious Mockery and your Skald has War Song Strike, how can you say they are similar?
So what are your thoughts? What is your preference?
Is X a subclass of Y or is X isn't own class with the subclass of Z?
However there is a part of the discuss very often skipped over.
Which one should get the defining features?
The Parent Class: Warrior.
The Child Class: Ranger
The Subclass: Beastmaster
The Parent Class: Priest
The Child Class: Cleric
The Subclass: War Cleric.
The Parent Class: Magic User
The Child Class: Sorcerer
The Subclass: Favored Soul.
"Well X should be a subclass of Y". Often fans don't discuss what that means.
For example. "Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are subclasses of Fighting Man". Well those three child classes have little in common. Martial weapons and extra attacks in most editions. There if you slide class features to the Fighting Man subclass, you greatly weaken the influence and power of features that make Barbarian feel barbaric or Paladin feel paladiny. And you mostly kill any chance of making the grandchild subclass even work or appear
Shifting the power to the parent child has similar effects. Look at 5e, the Warrior classes really have little in common. And Many subclasses give martial weapons, extra attacks, and bonus ho. So the classification is most useless. One the other hand, subclasses often lack the design space to truly display aspects of their story. This is how many of the more disappointing subclasses received their sad faces.
Then if you keep moving down the line, making space for the grand subclass really is making the previous 2 classifications meaningless. You really are starting to create new, fully disconnected "classes". Going hard on the Alchemy, Dragon Magic, Green Knight, Echo Swordsmanship, or Assassination can really make the final product look unrelated. If your Thief has Sneak attack, your Assassin has Death Attack, your Trickster has Trick Attack, your Scoundrel has Backstab, your Minstrel has Vicious Mockery and your Skald has War Song Strike, how can you say they are similar?
So what are your thoughts? What is your preference?