GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Yes. Since the Fighter concept is as broad as it is (and ranger, paladin, etc. as narrow as they are), it's hard to think of them as anything other than "fighter, but specifically X kind of fighter." Same goes for Rogue and Assassin (though it's looking like Assassin will be a scheme choice for Rogues, which I totally support).Do you feel we can't otherwise justify them as classes?
Sure. We're at a point with 5e where you have a Class and a Theme--your Class is generally what you do, and your Theme is specifically how you do it. Before, you only had Class, so the generic "guy who fights with weapons" existed alongside the specific "guy who fights with weapons to hunt, track, and survive in the wilderness" and "guy who fights with weapons according to a code which grants him divine powers," at the same decision point.I am not sure what you mean by this though. Could you expand on this a bit?
Now that we have multiple decision points, a very good argument can be made for Ranger being a theme, or Paladin being a theme, because they're basically just specific things added onto the Fighter class. But Rangers and Paladins are iconic D&D classes, and it's unlikely that they'll stop being classes. In my opinion, the best way to keep them as classes is to just acknowledge that they are specific things added onto the fighter class, but extensive enough that they deserve a full class writeup.
Literally none. It's a purely terminological distinction to explain (e.g.) why the general fighter and specific "fighter, but X" exist at the same decision point.So what benefit does using the term mean? What mechanical function does a subclass describe?