D&D 5E L&L: Subclasses

[Ratskinner]

Yeah, but then you'd have "melee-based class alpha" in stead of "Fighter" and "melee-based class beta" instead of "Gladiator". I think that would be worse.

"Fighter" seems pretty generic to me... as does "Rogue" (although "Rogue" doesn't necessarily connect to "skillsy-guy" in my head). "Cleric" and "Wizard" have a little more baggage, but "Magic User" seems very vague to me. At the level of sub-classes, there's still plenty of relatively generic terms floating around. Off the top of my head:

Fighter: Heavy Weapon specialist, Defender, Tactician, Archer, Two-Weapon specialist, Weapon Specialist
Rogue: Acrobat, Skulker, Striker, Expert, Face
Cleric: Leader, Invoker, Avenger
Wizard: Blaster, Leader, Controller

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Oh, I know that. And I've been arguing in other threads that I think that is a wrong way to go too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

So in order to play a Samurai, we need to make sure there's a Samurai sub-class. Right. And in order to make sure all of our Scout fans out there can play Scouts... we gotta have a Scout sub-class. Gotcha. And for all those players who want to play Pirates... well then, they can just use the Pirate sub-cla-- oh wait. There *isn't* a Pirate sub-class. I guess that means no one can play Pirates then.

So what are we to do then? If by your theory that those who don't want to play Samurais shouldn't be choosing the Samurai sub-class... and it just so happens they don't want to play the other like six or seven Fighter sub-classes the book will include either-- Gladiator, Scout, Outlaw, Mountain Man or whatever they come up with... well, I guess that means they just shouldn't be playing Fighters at all then, right? Because that's what's important here isn't it? Making sure those eight different "Fighter concepts" get represented in the game... and too bad, so sad, bye bye to the other hundreds of different fighter concepts that they just can't fit into the game. Players can either play their choice *and* layer a Samurai, Scout, or Gladiator on top of it... or they just shouldn't play fighters at all.

Oh yeah... that's exactly what the game needs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So in order to play a Samurai, we need to make sure there's a Samurai sub-class. Right.

No, but you might want to, if it's an archetype you want to support.

It's probably an archetype D&D wants to support, so they probably want to make a samurai sub-class. It's a mistake to view that as necessary, though.

And in order to make sure all of our Scout fans out there can play Scouts... we gotta have a Scout sub-class. Gotcha. And for all those players who want to play Pirates... well then, they can just use the Pirate sub-cla-- oh wait. There *isn't* a Pirate sub-class. I guess that means no one can play Pirates then.

I don't know where you got your hands on The Official List of The Only Sub Classes Ever, Period. but I want a copy.

So what are we to do then? If by your theory that those who don't want to play Samurais shouldn't be choosing the Samurai sub-class...

I think that's a pretty fundamental misinterpretation of my case.

and it just so happens they don't want to play the other like six or seven Fighter sub-classes the book will include either-- Gladiator, Scout, Outlaw, Mountain Man or whatever they come up with... well, I guess that means they just shouldn't be playing Fighters at all then, right? Because that's what's important here isn't it? Making sure those eight different "Fighter concepts" get represented in the game... and too bad, so sad, bye bye to the other hundreds of different fighter concepts that they just can't fit into the game. Players can either play their choice *and* layer a Samurai, Scout, or Gladiator on top of it... or they just shouldn't play fighters at all.

I don't understand what you're on about here.

Someone wants to play a particular archetype, but can't find a particular rules element keyed with the name?

This is not a catastrophe. Identify what's important about the concept and grab the rules element that hit it.

If there's no pirate subclass, grab the sailor background and the pistol-and-sword specialty, the rogue class with the bandit subclass that focuses on intimidation and dirty fighting, and what more do you want?

This is not even to mention that most of the typical archetypes (ie: the ones that have appeared in any D&D book ever) are likely to be covered, if not upon initial release (which is likely to be very broad from what they're saying here), then in the splats.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

For once, I don't agree with DEFCON 1. I'm a little surprised.

When I play a class based game, I'm doing it because I want strong archetypes that are easy to select. I'm not after choice points, or the ability to build any character from a wide list of options. Just a little flexibility to support the in game decisions I make. Subclasses fit the bill very well. I tend not to be a fan of feats, but if they're large and thematic enough to effectively theme a character, then they can work. But I would support a game with sublclasses and no feats far more than the other way around.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Oh, I know that. And I've been arguing in other threads that I think that is a wrong way to go too.

And I think specialties/feats is the right way to go, we don't need to make a bunch of subclasses just so we can have a special Two-weapon Ranger, Tempest Fighter and Whirling Barbarian. And end up with nothing for Rogues and other classes that might be interesting with dual wielding.

 

[1of3]

So in order to play a Samurai, we need to make sure there's a Samurai sub-class. Right. [...]

While I understand your line of thought, it doesn't fit the way I use D&D. You start with a concept, looking how to mold your character into it. I, on the other hand, look through the catalogue, pick things I like, then think: What is this guy about. So for me more fluffy options are better. They help me figure out my guy's story.

 

[Somebloke]

With all this talk of design space between subclasses and themes, is anyone else getting nostalgic over Star Wars SAGA? They had a nice, efficient way of blending feats- sorry, 'talents', class abilities and subclasses that really gelled for me. Just enough structure to make it not overwhelming, with enough freedom to make your scoundrel1 into any one of a dozen ideas.

If anyone ever designs a system like that with the simplicity of Next, I would be sold.

 

[Li Shenron]

Fighter: Heavy Weapon specialist, Defender, Tactician, Archer, Two-Weapon specialist, Weapon Specialist
Rogue: Acrobat, Skulker, Striker, Expert, Face
Cleric: Leader, Invoker, Avenger
Wizard: Blaster, Leader, Controller

I have to say that these all now feel quite inappropriate to me.

We have to understand that there are "gamist" players who like these, but to "casual" players there could be horribly nondescript: <"Striker" must obviously be a Fighter, right?> <No, it's a Rogue of course> <Why do I have to be a Cleric to be a Leader?> <Because "Leaders" are Clerics or Wizards by the rules> <I am a Wizard and I am an Expert at...> <No, stop there, you have to be a Rogue to be an "Expert"> and so on, these keywords could mean anything and are almost arbitrary. Pretty much all of them.

OTOH, a "Gladiator" clearly is a type of Fighter, while a "Necromancer" is a type of Wizard. There can be some overlap, such as Necromancer being also a Cleric (debatable, but possible of course), but at least these names tell you who you are as a whole, while all the above rather tell you about your tactics.

It's hard to think of a Necromancer Fighter or a Gladiator Wizard. They are definitely not impossible, but clearly they are advanced concepts compared to a Gladiator Fighter and Necromancer Wizard. OTOH an archer Fighter and an archer Wizard are both totally understandable to everybody, they are not advanced concepts at all, they are just characters who wield a bow.

 

[Szatany]

OTOH an archer Fighter and an archer Wizard are both totally understandable to everybody,

Are they? I never heard of archer wizards in any fiction (except maybe Earthdawn) and to me a wizard is not an archer.