D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[I'm A Banana]

Doesn't this controversy over subclasses remind anyone of the complaints about classes in 4e?

"I'm going to make my Fighter be an archer"
"Then you should play a Ranger, they're built for archery"
"But I want to be a FIGHTER!"

And now, with 5e, we have:

"I want my Fighter to use exotic weapons"
"Then you should pick the Samurai subclass, they get exotic weapons proficiency"
"But my guy isn't a samurai! He's a pirate!"

I actually think this is kind of the opposite.

"I want my fighter to use exotic weapons!"
"Here, have a background. And a specialty. And a subclass."

"I want my fighter to use ranged weapons."
"Here, have a background. And a specialty. And a subclass."

Divorcing mechanics from the world is aggressively harmful to a substantial number of playstyles.

He just made that decision. It wasn't the game assigning him a specialty of "pirate" or a background of "pirate" or a class of "pirate" or anything like that. His character concept was a pirate and he build the character to BE a pirate. But unlike these Fighter sub-classes... none of the other choice points he makes (from race to class to background) run counter to that choice.

The Fighter Subclass choice-point didn't run counter to that choice, either. If it did, he presumably wouldn't have chosen Samurai, since it would not have helped him make his character.

This sounds like a manufactured problem. When someone is making a character with a specific archetype in mind, they're going to choose options that support that archetype, and not choose options that don't support that archetype. If someone creates a samurai (subclass) and says they're a pirate (because...whatever), that's presumably not a problem for them. Nothing in the rules is likely to force someone to pick a subclass that doesn't work for their character.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would say the fluff is the same: "Pirate". All those other terms (Wood Elf Commoner Fighter Skirmisher Samurai) are crunch keywords that point to mechanical abilities/scores/skills, etc.

The game DESIGN is all crunch, no matter what title WotC uses for a class, specialty, background, etc.

I would disagree that 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' are the same kind of crunch description as 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer'. I think former imply something very different than the latter. At least, they do to me.

When I see 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer', I get a sense of the method that a Fighter class fights. It's how they do what they are. Whereas 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' say to me who they are. To me... 'Skirmisher' isn't a job. No one in the party would say "I'm the skirmisher!". But they would say "I'm the scout!".

In my opinion, as I've said... I'd prefer to see the different fighting styles be the sub-classes of the Fighter. Weapon & Shield. Two-Handed. Dual-wielder. Finesse. Improvised & Unarmed. Ranged. Polearm. Tactical. Thrown. Jack-of-all-Trades. If we feel the need to add a descriptive term TO those styles for ease-of-use, they should imply nothing more than the fighting style if at all possible. The name should give you a pretty good idea of what exactly that fighting style does. Defender. Slayer. Tempest. Duelist. Brawler. Marksman. Pikeman. Tactician. Hurler. Weaponmaster. (Or whatever.)

But the last thing I really want is to see just a list of jobs that Fighters do, because what is really gained from that over just using the name of the fighting style? That's essentially my point. When the name of a weapon class or a fighting style can work so well without pigeonholing a character into a thematic identity... why wouldn't you just use it? What is gained by going the other way? Knight. Gladiator. Samurai. Scout. Outlaw. Pirate. Myrmidon. Warlord. Mercenary. Hoplite. Legionnaire. Do these tell me anything specific about how I fight? Nope. As a Knight I can fight all kinds of different ways. So all it's doing by using the term 'Knight' is implying my background or current living situation... and we already have other character design functions to accomplish that. I don't need my sub-class to do it too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This sounds like a manufactured problem. When someone is making a character with a specific archetype in mind, they're going to choose options that support that archetype, and not choose options that don't support that archetype. If someone creates a samurai (subclass) and says they're a pirate (because...whatever), that's presumably not a problem for them. Nothing in the rules is likely to force someone to pick a subclass that doesn't work for their character.

Then just tell me why using the term 'Samurai' is preferable to you than using 'Dual-Wielder' to define a Fighter sub-class? What is gained by the specificity of the Fighter's job, but not of the Fighter's specialization in fighting? How does that help define your character (if we assume you don't actually want to play a Samurai.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

I would disagree that 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' are the same kind of crunch description as 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer'. I think former imply something very different than the latter. At least, they do to me.

When I see 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer', I get a sense of the method that a Fighter class fights. It's how they do what they are. Whereas 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' say to me who they are. To me... 'Skirmisher' isn't a job. No one in the party would say "I'm the skirmisher!". But they would say "I'm the scout!".

In my opinion, as I've said... I'd prefer to see the different fighting styles be the sub-classes of the Fighter. Weapon & Shield. Two-Handed. Dual-wielder. Finesse. Improvised & Unarmed. Ranged. Polearm. Tactical. Thrown. Jack-of-all-Trades. If we feel the need to add a descriptive term TO those styles for ease-of-use, they should imply nothing more than the fighting style if at all possible. The name should give you a pretty good idea of what exactly that fighting style does. Defender. Slayer. Tempest. Duelist. Brawler. Marksman. Pikeman. Tactician. Hurler. Weaponmaster. (Or whatever.)

But the last thing I really want is to see just a list of jobs that Fighters do, because what is really gained from that over just using the name of the fighting style? That's essentially my point. When the name of a weapon class or a fighting style can work so well without pigeonholing a character into a thematic identity... why wouldn't you just use it? What is gained by going the other way? Knight. Gladiator. Samurai. Scout. Outlaw. Pirate. Myrmidon. Warlord. Mercenary. Hoplite. Legionnaire. Do these tell me anything specific about how I fight? Nope. As a Knight I can fight all kinds of different ways. So all it's doing by using the term 'Knight' is implying my background or current living situation... and we already have other character design functions to accomplish that. I don't need my sub-class to do it too.

XP'd this post. Only posting because XP comments are visible.

 

[jrowland]

I would disagree that 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' are the same kind of crunch description as 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer'. I think former imply something very different than the latter. At least, they do to me.

To clarify my point, when you choose the "samurai" build in a game like D&D, you are choosing the mechanical package the game offers, regardless of what "samurai" means in your head. So absolutely, they do mean different things.

I agree, informative "naming" should trump "evocative" naming. "Dual-Wielder" being an example of "informative" and "Eskrima" an example of "evocative". Purists would scream if WotC made a Duel-Wielding sub-class called Eskrima since Eskrima isn't exclusively a duel-wielding style, but it certainly is evocative of that style.

However, ultimately, whatever it is called, it is a mechanical package you choose or not. The only reason to use terms like "Knight. Gladiator. Samurai. Scout. Outlaw. Pirate. Myrmidon. Warlord. Mercenary. Hoplite. Legionnaire" is to provide a shorthand for those mechanical packages.

Should they be informative names rather than evocative? Yes. Does it make any functional difference? No, the mechanical functional package is the same regardless of name.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And most importantly, Mearls explicitely told us, that dual wielder will be no fighter speciality, but a feat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then just tell me why using the term 'Samurai' is preferable to you than using 'Dual-Wielder' to define a Fighter sub-class? What is gained by the specificity of the Fighter's job, but not of the Fighter's specialization in fighting? How does that help define your character (if we assume you don't actually want to play a Samurai.)

Those examples I put above are mostly people who DO actually want to play a samurai. The feudal Japanese knightly caste and the buckets of archetypes that go along with it is part and parcel of how they see their characters (even if they're also a pirate). That's part of their character, it's not incompatible with pirate, and it's an important piece of the puzzle.

And if you don't actually want to play a samurai, you don't have to pick that subclass, so I don't know why you're picking that subclass if that's not actually something you're interested in playing. Certainly they're not the only thing that can dual-wield, if that's something you're looking for, because a central idea of this design scheme is that there's more than one way to do everything, including dual-wielding.

 

[pemerton]

I've been playing Cleric/fighter multiclass (my usually go to build) since 1E. I've always called it a Paladin, and played accordingly, even with a published Paladin available.

I agree with this. My 4e table has two paladins - one built as a paladin/Questing Knight/Marshal of Letherna, the other built as a fighter-multi-class-cleric/Warpriest/Eternal Defender.

 

[pemerton]

I would disagree that 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' are the same kind of crunch description as 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer'. I think former imply something very different than the latter. At least, they do to me.

<snip>

Knight. Gladiator. Samurai. Scout. Outlaw. Pirate. Myrmidon. Warlord. Mercenary. Hoplite. Legionnaire. Do these tell me anything specific about how I fight? Nope.

I see your point, but I think some of these reactions are very individual.

For instance, for me Knight implies mounted combat with lance, shield and heavy one-handed weapons. Gladiator implies flexible armour (typically light) and exotic weapons. Samurai implies a knight with lighter armour and bow skills. Scout implies mobility - either light infantry or light cavalry. Hoplite implies breastplate, spear and shield infantry. Legionnaire much the same (and redundant given the hoplite build).

Some of your other terms are less clear to me - though even Mercenary, for instance, wouldn't need much tweaking to evoke some late-Renaissance/early-modern halberd wielding combatant skilled in formation fighting.

 

[Remathilis]

And this is completely different than the Cleric and Wizard sub-classes. The Cleric class says you gain your spells from a god. Choose who that god is. That's it. It doesn't tell you you're a Missionary for your god. It doesn't tell us you're a Templar for your god. It doesn't tell us you're a Cloistered Priest for your god. You can make that decision for yourself for whatever you want your character to be. You choose what your character does... the game's sub-class tells you what you get for doing it.

Likewise... the Wizard class says you use magic to cast spells. These spells are grouped together in "schools" based on how they do what they do. If you want to focus on just a certain group, then you can get a few extra abilities for doing so. It doesn't tell you your character's a Witch Doctor. It doesn't tell you your character's a Dragon Sorcerer. It doesn't tell you your character's an Arcane Trickster. You get to decide on any of those things yourself. You choose who you are... and the sub-class gives you stuff for how you do it.

I think you're going to be wrong on this...

Just look at the stink made about ONE type of sorcerer back a dozen packets ago being too fighter-mage for most people. People were angry that dragon-sorcerers (one of many potential sorcerer sub-classes) were forced into greatswords and heavy armor. Likewise, I can expect a lot of people to be upset that sun-clerics are far more invoker/magish than mace-and-plate clerics or yore.

I'm sure the beguiler, warmage, warlock, necromancer, and loremaster subclasses will raise as much ire as the samurai, warlord, and scout ones once we see them.