Terminology: Can Subclasses Please Be a Thing?

[GX.Sigma]

Do you feel we can't otherwise justify them as classes?

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).

I am not sure what you mean by this though. Could you expand on this a bit?

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.

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.

So what benefit does using the term mean? What mechanical function does a subclass describe?

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.

 

[Minigiant]

I keep hearing that the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian is just a fighter with a theme.

I have asked many times if someone could invent two feat that you can put on the playtest fighter instead of Reaper and Cleave and get a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian. Many have failed.

Can you make a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian with a fighter and a few feats? I doubt it as no one has.

 

[Serendipity]

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.

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.
At this point I think the only compromise that's going to please more than 50% of anyone concerned is to put forth both classes and themes for paladins, assassins, etc etc. Sure it's redundant, and sure it's far from elegant, but I'll take useful over elegant any day.
From a certain standpoint, this allows a wider variety of character modeling to occur as someone who wants to play a specific kind of paladin can take the paladin class and then grab the relevant background and theme(s), whereas someone who "just wants to play a paladin" can take the theme and add it to, say fighter, or cleric....or to something even more unusual if that's what they want to do. And that's a good thing I think.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I keep hearing that the Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian is just a fighter with a theme.

I have asked many times if someone could invent two feat that you can put on the playtest fighter instead of Reaper and Cleave and get a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian. Many have failed.

Can you make a Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian with a fighter and a few feats? I doubt it as no one has.

Berserker Rage (1st-level feat)
A certain number of times per day, you can enter a rage. This rage temporarily increases your STR and CON by 4 (increasing your maximum hit points by 2 per level), but renders you unable to cast spells, use combat maneuvers, succeed at any CHA-, INT-, or DEX- based checks or saves, or perform any other task requiring patience or concentration. After exiting the rage, you are fatigued until you take a 10-minute rest. You can rage a number of times per day equal to your (normal) CON modifier, and your rage lasts a number of rounds equal to 3 + your (newly improved) CON modifier.


There's barbarian in one (slightly clunky) feat. That's not the point of this thread, though. The point is that these classes can and probably should exist as classes (for traditional and mechanical reasons), but require some terminological explanation to justify why they're not themes.

 

[Minigiant]

Berserker Rage (1st-level feat)
A certain number of times per day, you can enter a rage. This rage temporarily increases your STR and CON by 4 (increasing your maximum hit points by 2 per level), but renders you unable to cast spells, use combat maneuvers, succeed at any CHA-, INT-, or DEX- based checks or saves, or perform any other task requiring patience or concentration. After exiting the rage, you are fatigued until you take a 10-minute rest. You can rage a number of times per day equal to your (normal) CON modifier, and your rage lasts a number of rounds equal to 3 + your (newly improved) CON modifier.


There's barbarian in one (slightly clunky) feat. That's not the point of this thread, though. The point is that these classes can and probably should exist as classes (for traditional and mechanical reasons), but require some terminological explanation to justify why they're not themes.

That my friend is the justification of why they're not themes. Many of the D&D classes have heavy baggage.

The iconic features of these classes are such that they are too clunky to simply add on a fully realized class. They must be written from the ground up from a empty shell of a class.

The subclass system would require a nearly empty and almost unplayable base class in order to have subclasses of D&D iconic character classes.

Then there is the issue of spending the theme and background to make your character and thus robbing the character of 2 customization options.

Then there is the issue of fitting all the iconic features in.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That my friend is the justification of why they're not themes. Many of the D&D classes have heavy baggage.

The iconic features of these classes are such that they are too clunky to simply add on a fully realized class. They must be written from the ground up from a empty shell of a class.

The subclass system would require a nearly empty and almost unplayable base class in order to have subclasses of D&D iconic character classes.

Your first two paragraphs neatly summarize what I'm trying to say, but I don't understand the third. Also, are you implying the 5e fighter isn't "nearly empty?"

I think what we're failing to communicate is that you think "subclass" means "base class plus stuff;" whereas I think "subclass" means "mechanically and creatively similar to base class but not necessarily based on the exact same mechanics."

I'm not advocating a mechanical "subclass system."

 

[jadrax]

Im pretty much at the point where I think they are justified (read the threads, assimilated the arguments, and voted from rangers as classes. Tick). But Im having trouble understanding how sub-classes are a separate concept from themes.

I think at the core, Themes are currently no where near as broad as sub-classes would be. Themes are going to cover things like 'Axe Fighter' or 'Slayer', or at the most 'Guardian'. In effect they put a slight spin on what a class does, they can never redefine it. Themes are also mainly detached from classes, so if a theme only seems applicable to one class, it is probably not a Theme.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What happens to the ones that don't fit?

Which is really most of them. Is a ranger a type of fighter or a type of rogue? Is a paladin a type of fighter or a type of cleric? Is a warlock a type of wizard, despite using fundamentally different mechanics? Where do monks fit?

No, I think it's unnecessary to do the whole subclass thing. I don't really see the upside.

 

[GX.Sigma]

To explain it another way: The way the game is currently designed, the Fighter class represents a general concept, and then through a combination of background, theme, and class feature choices, you can choose what specific kind of fighter you want to be.

The Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian aesthetically feel like "specific kinds of fighter," so the aesthetics of the design would have them as backgrounds, themes, and/or class feature choices. The problem is, for a variety of reasons (summarized below), some of them can't fit into those slots (though some of them can, and should). Therefore, if they are separate classes, I feel it would be best to describe those classes explicitly as being "specific kinds of fighter."

The other solution is to redefine fighter to have a more specific meaning (much like 3e defined Wizard as "spellcaster who studies arcane magic" and Sorcerer as "spellcaster who is naturally talented with arcane magic), but that still doesn't solve Assassin and Druid, which exist wholly within the definition of other classes.


* Reasons why they can't be backgrounds/themes/in-class choices: Tradition, too much mechanical baggage, doesn't fit due to the design of those customization slots (e.g. a Barbarian background can't preclude armor proficiencies, because backgrounds have to be non-combat)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If it's just a label, why does it matter?