D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Falling Icicle]

I like most of what was said in the article. There were only a couple things that bugged me. First, why is the scout a fighter subclass? IMO, it makes far more sense as a subclass of rogue or ranger. Second, I don't like that they're focusing on spellcasting as the main thing that separates rangers and paladins from fighters. I'd prefer for spellcasting to be optional for those classes, particularly the ranger.

I also think they should just make barbarian a fighter subclass. They're just fighters with rage anyway.

 

[Ichneumon]

Unless there's been a misprint, I think the scout's been made a fighter subclass as an easy pick for players who want to run an archer fighter. It also has a military angle, referring to scouting territory for enemies. Ranger subclasses are all tied to their favoured enemies, and while the scout makes a lot of sense as a rogue subclass, it doesn't really have the "criminal vibe" of subclasses like assassin and thief. Of course, it might end up doing double duty, or as a speciality.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I'm not sure about scout and I'm a bit leery of knight. Both these seem to be approaching Ranger & Paladin classes respectively, and also there is a bit of strangeness with the Guide and Knight backgrounds.

Let's take the Knight for example. Now I can see that the word actually has a few usages, a title, a role in the community, a warrior description, and a warrior code.

Alright so what's going on here. The background is just that, where you come from & what you do outside of quests. A fighter-knight compares to a paladin in that the paladin is by default knightly with spiritual oaths & powers, whereas said fighter-knight would be an exceptional representative of the more commonly encountered warriors serving a liege or wandering knight-errant.

It would be possible for a fighter-knight to have say a commoner background if they were say one whose valor plucked them from obscurity after some battle they luckily survived.

Yeah ok, I can now quite easily see fighter-knights as part of the world. However I think the "Knight" background may need a renaming just to remove the 'night-fighting fighter-knight knight fight' silliness I just though up. Oh dear Cavalier has been taken.

Scout? Ok, got to crash, I'll leave that to you to ponder.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Pretty sure they said it would be its own class,

Nope. This is about the fifth time now that they've said that Warlords are not going to be their own class.

They did say, way back, that every class that appeared in a (first) PHB would make it into Next on launch, but later they clarified that they meant the name and general concept would make it in, not the class itself as such. So Warlords are sub-Fighters, Assassins are sub-Rogues. This is a piece of backpedaling and misdirection worthy of politicians if you ask me, but despite repeated statements that Warlords won't be class of their own a lot of people still don't quite seem to realize this.

I think the difference between a class and a subclass is whether or not there are lots of different types of it. So if you say the class is Fighter, we can all think of a bunch of types of Fighter who need their mechanics to operate as intended. If we say Samurai, well, that's so specific that it's getting hard to think of different mechanics for different types of Samurai.

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. A samurai is just a certain level of (martial-oriented) noble status. It doesn't imply a single thing about what weapons they use, what armor they use, whether or not they're on horseback, and so on. Heck, the Legends of the Five Rings RPG consists of practically nothing but samurai characters and yet manages to have plenty of diversity. It's not something specific in the slightest.



And now more generally about the article itself:

I'm happy to see they acknowledge that spellcasters often overshadowed martial types, but I don't see how subclasses are a solution to this issue. Just because you got to write "gladiator" on your sheet and got a few abilities related to it, doesn't mean that the Wizard can't overshadow you. The two elements have nothing to do with one another.

I'm also not a fan of Knight (and such) being subclasses. I liked it when those were backgrounds or specialties, so that you could also have Cleric-Knights and Wizard-Knights. You could easily have a whole campaign with nothing but Knights, each with different classes but still being sword-brothers of the same order or something.

I have no idea, whatsoever, why "archer" deserves to be feats while "duelist" has to be a Fighter subclass. I can't see the distinction that would make a concept fall into one or the other.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Maybe the Fighter-subclass-Knight moves two spaces in one direction, then another space orthogonally, jumping over any enemies in the way.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. A samurai is just a certain level of (martial-oriented) noble status. It doesn't imply a single thing about what weapons they use, what armor they use, whether or not they're on horseback, and so on. Heck, the Legends of the Five Rings RPG consists of practically nothing but samurai characters and yet manages to have plenty of diversity. It's not something specific in the slightest.

That is a fair point - a bad example on my part. They might be better as a Paladin subclass, or even a background/speciality since they don't have any iconic abilities (that I know of from the various D&D versions there have been).

 

[Dragoslav]

Admittedly, as one of the most ardent defenders of the Warlord as a separate class, I'm actually cautiously optimistic about what they plan to do with the Warlord as a subclass. While I hated the idea of a Warlord as just a Fighter with a certain background and certain feats, I think I'm okay with it as a subclass, as long as "subclass" doesn't mean "instead of feats, you get these specific extra abilities."

 

[JamesonCourage]

They did say, way back, that every class that appeared in a (first) PHB would make it into Next on launch

This is what I was referring to. As always, play what you like

 

[Iosue]

Here's my speculation.

Feedback to the previous-to-last packet was that fighters and rogues needed something more, and they hit upon the idea of giving them more class features and then putting other options into a group of feats, so players could customize as they liked to fit whatever concept they had.

The feedback to the last packet has probably been uneven, with a lot of folks saying they liked the Fighting Styles, and that while they like the class features, it seems the fighter doesn't have a clear concept other than "does stuff in combat". So their solution has been to bring the Fighting Styles back, but buff them up to full subclasses with unique subclass features.

Ideally, what I'd like to see is each fighter subclass providing unique non-combat abilities for exploration and/or interaction, as well. One problem the Fighter (and to a lesser extent, the Rogue) has had versus other characters is a loss of class concept. Wizards, Clerics, and Monks all get extra skills because regardless of tradition, deity, or martial art, those classes have a concept. Clerics are priests; they should have Religion. Wizards study; they should have Lore skills. But there's been a tendency to want to keep the Fighter conceptually open so people can use them to make knights, gladiators, archers, duelists, and what have you. But if they beef up the old Fighting Styles to full-fledged subclasses, then they can go ahead and give those subclasses extra skills or traits, or the like, so that they are as well-rounded as other classes.

We'll still have to wait and see, but what this does give me hope for is that the design team is looking to give the Fighter Nice Things. It's nice to have, say, Knight as a background, because then you can do cool things like have a knightly cleric, a knightly mage, even a knightly rogue. But whither the fighter? If they make a Knight subclass for the fighter, then they can still have those cool things and make the knightly fighter distinct. Likewise with a Scout Fighter, you can have a commando-type scout, vs. a Scout Rogue, who may be more of a James Bond-type.

 

[steeldragons]

They might be better as a Paladin subclass, or even a background/speciality since they don't have any iconic abilities (that I know of from the various D&D versions there have been).

That's not a bad idea. I've never considered that, but it makes all kindsa sense. [here's where, I'm sure, certain players will pop up and say "But I want to make my warlord some barbarian king rager guy. Because of my singular conception for this 1 character they can't do that or 5e iz suxxors!"]

Something like:
Class: Cavalier
Sub-classes: Paladin (I'm sorry but making a cavalier sub of a Paladin overclass just makes no sense), Warden, Blackguard, Warlord.
Backgrounds: Barbarian, Knight, Samurai, etc...

Admittedly, as one of the most ardent defenders of the Warlord as a separate class, I'm actually cautiously optimistic about what they plan to do with the Warlord as a subclass. While I hated the idea of a Warlord as just a Fighter with a certain background and certain feats, I think I'm okay with it as a subclass, as long as "subclass" doesn't mean "instead of feats, you get these specific extra abilities."

This seems a little...arbitrary. Subclass = OK! But Background or Specialty package = Those BASTARDS!

And from what I've seen, it does seem a subclass will be a specific set of extra abilities...which will likely include some feats...so what's the problem?

I think, and this is just totally my own opinion, but it seems that 5e is beginning to get sunk under the weight of its own terminology.
Classes, Background, Theme. ...Lovely simple. "Hoowah what a neat set up!" ...now we're doin' Specialities not feats. Backgrounds are for Skills...now, and Specialities are for...Feats?...but might have some skills...Maneuvers? Those are in Fighting Styles...which will be placed into themes, er, I mean Specialities...but doesn't that make them the same as Feats? Why yes they are we're gonna make Specialities Feat bundles...No? SUB-CLASSES! That's what we want...SUB-CLASSES, that fixes everything!...cuz then the Feats go in the Background with the Skills and a Specialty Package is NOT the CLASS! ...soooo, then what's the class, again? OH that's just what the name/title of what a similar archetypal group is gonna be. It doesn't actually mean anything on its own.