D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I absolutely and whole-heartedly disagree. Its one of the problems I have with Bo9S and even 4e to some extent. Having a word, especially a word with a lot of real-word baggage, that I have to constantly mentally "correct" while I'm reading, playing, or preparing, is much more work than having more neutral words that I can use to compose a character.

Totally irrelevant, you're going to be writing all that stuff down in the "abilities" section, anyway. (Given the way D&D works, anyway.)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Totally irrelevant, you're going to be writing all that stuff down in the "abilities" section, anyway. (Given the way D&D works, anyway.)

Non-glib reply: It is relevant. Because your character sheet isn't the only place the suite of abilities will be written. The designers have to identify these packages of abilities if they are going to present them in this format. If they went the feat route and made each element a separate feat they could avoid the naming issue. So, what one or two words would you use to describe the package "Fighter who uses light armor, rides a horse, uses a bow, and exotic weapons" that doesn't carry the baggage that Samurai does? Now, think ahead to other packages that overlap portions of this one when naming this one. I don't really care what the name is, as long as it isn't some long, generic sentence that lists the specific abilities.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, what one or two words would you use to describe the package "Fighter who uses light armor, rides a horse, uses a bow, and exotic weapons" that doesn't carry the baggage that Samurai does?

Take out the "exotic weapons" part and the term is already in the game-- Skirmisher.

But in any event... there's not going to be any Fighter mechanic (whether it be expertise dice or some other thing) that is going to require that specific of a load-out of equipment. We've already talked about this upthread-- if the sub-classes are how Fighter's fight... then we've already seen the terms in the game of how they can be laid out:

Weapon & Shield - Defender
Greatweapon - Slayer
Dual-wield - Tempest
Finesse weapon - Duelist
Loaded ranged - Marksman
Thrown ranged - Hurler
Impovised/unarmed - Brawler
Tactical - Warlord

Other than the Warlord (only listed here because of legacy issues), none of these names imply any sort of world, or specific culture, or job, or scenario/plotline as to why they are that sub-class.

You say 'Gladiator'... that implies who you are, where you learned your technique, and how you got where you are. You say 'Brawler'... that implies much, much less about the specifics as to who your character is... and thus allows you to create your character's history yourself.

If you still question my point on this, then let's turn things around. The sub-classes (and thus the abilities you get) of Cleric are no longer based on the god you worship, but are now 'Hospitaler', 'Chevalier', 'Priest' and 'Missionary'. Do you feel that's a better system? If you think so... then fine. Your point is made, and I just disagree with it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Weapon & Shield - Defender

What if my character is a coward who would never put himself in harm's way to defend another?

Greatweapon - Slayer

What if my character never tries to kill, only subdue?

Dual-wield - Tempest

What if my character is actually calm and serene?

Finesse weapon - Duelist

What if my character thinks dueling is for chumps and would rather stab you in the back?

Point being that there is still considerable baggage. I would ignore the word in all the above cases and focus on my concept.

Loaded ranged - Marksman
Thrown ranged - Hurler

These actually work, but what if there is more to your concept than ranged weaponry?

If you still question my point on this, then let's turn things around. The sub-classes (and thus the abilities you get) of Cleric are no longer based on the god you worship, but are now 'Hospitaler', 'Chevalier', 'Priest' and 'Missionary'. Do you feel that's a better system? If you think so... then fine. Your point is made, and I just disagree with it.

I don't have a problem with that route, because IMO it is easier to discard fluff than create it. You can list the package of abilities on your character sheet and ignore the word Gladiator. The real problem I have with your naming convention are that they become very narrow. They could work as feats (especially since they are now 'tremendous'), but are too limited IMO to be a sub-class.

Actually, that's why I wouldn't mind seeing multiple paths to the same result. If you could choose the Skirmisher feat and exotic weapon proficiency while someone else picks the Samurai sub-class, I'm good with that too.

 

[Ratskinner]

Totally irrelevant, you're going to be writing all that stuff down in the "abilities" section, anyway. (Given the way D&D works, anyway.)

Not so.

If I have a character trait or suit of traits that I've renamed in my game world, then I am faced with two choices: either I write the custom-flavored name on the sheet and hope I remember the "real" name when I need to look it up, or I write the "real" name on the sheet and have to remember my re-flavored name each time I look at it. At least, the way D&D has been written, I've never been in a position to have the entirety of all my traits and the rules bits that go with them on the character sheet.

Which is not to say that a game cannot be written in such a way to make that possible, I just don't think D&D is it.

 

[Ratskinner]

So, what one or two words would you use to describe the package "Fighter who uses light armor, rides a horse, uses a bow, and exotic weapons" that doesn't carry the baggage that Samurai does? Now, think ahead to other packages that overlap portions of this one when naming this one. I don't really care what the name is, as long as it isn't some long, generic sentence that lists the specific abilities.

Light Cavalryman (within the cultural context, I'm not sure the weapons would count as "exotic")

If he's focusing on being the uber-katana guy: Weapon Master

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Not so.

If I have a character trait or suit of traits that I've renamed in my game world, then I am faced with two choices: either I write the custom-flavored name on the sheet and hope I remember the "real" name when I need to look it up, or I write the "real" name on the sheet and have to remember my re-flavored name each time I look at it. At least, the way D&D has been written, I've never been in a position to have the entirety of all my traits and the rules bits that go with them on the character sheet.

Then I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said "Totally irrelevant, you're going to be writing all that stuff down in the "abilities" section, anyway."

A third choice is to write the real name on the Sub-class line of your character sheet and work the reflavored name into the Background/History/Notes section of your character.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Light Cavalryman (within the cultural context, I'm not sure the weapons would count as "exotic")

And if my character is not part of a military force? There's still baggage.

If he's focusing on being the uber-katana guy: Weapon Master

Weapon Master is narrow though. Good as a feat IMO but not a sub-class.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

And if my character is not part of a military force? There's still baggage.

Any system with classes has the potential for baggage. "This rogue class seems like the best fit mechanically, but my character isn't a rogue. He's a well-respected, stand-up citizen who happens to a member of the locksmith's guild." Personally, I prefer a little flavor in the classes (and subclasses) in order to spark my imagination. Evocative names help on that account.

 

[GSHamster]

In my mind, the best system for fighter subclasses are feat "packages" or builds. The Samurai is merely a label for taking Feats A, B, F, and K. You can take the feats separately, or swap in a different feat. Or if you want to play a Samurai, you can always follow the recommend package.

If anyone has played the MMO The Secret World, their deck system has a very similar concept.