Terminology: Can Subclasses Please Be a Thing?

[DDogwood]

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

If you care to outline your criteria for what you think would be a "successful" theme, it might be possible. It's hard to say. I'm not saying that you're doing this, but in my experience, many people who say that a thing "can't be done" are usually moving the goalposts so that any attempt is destined to fail no matter how good it is.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think that is where the problem starts. The fighter is a general concept. It is not the general warrior.

The fighter (for several editions) is an expertly trained warrior, is very comfortable all sorts of armor, and has some sort of mastery of several weapons based martial arts.


With the above definition, Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian are not "specific kinds of fighter". They are special kinds of warrior.

The Ranger is a warrior of necessity. He walks the parts of the world where combat is unavoidable as he is either protecting an area, defending himself or allies, or is actively hunting hostile prey. The only thing a ranger and fighter have in common is that they use weapons and are good at using them.

The Barbarian is warrior of instinct and emotion. Many are not formally trained and substitute rage and fury for technique. The only thing a barbarian and fighter have in common is that they use weapons and are good at using them.

etc etc.

So unless all you define a fighter as is someone who "use weapons and are good at using them", the other classes are not special types of fighter.

Good point. I guess my response is that the fighter pretty much is nothing more than "use weapons and are good at using them," but your distinction is valid. The more I read this thread, the more I agree with Mike Mearls: it depends on how much they end up overlapping.

Maybe it's me, but I'm really not getting convinced here. I don't see the Paladin as "a Fighter but different" when I'm making a Paladin. Same goes for an Assassin vs a Rogue.

To me, a Fighter isn't just a [race] with martial skills. A wizard isn't just a [race] with magic. When I think of of Cleric, I think of all the flavor that implies, and what it is in its own right. I do the same for Druid. They are separate to me, not occupying the same space.

To me that's really weird, as I cannot think of Assassin as anything other than "Rogue with better sneak attack and worse trapfinding" or Druid as anything other than "Cleric of specific religion."

The same goes for races. And so, I support making the distinctions as such: races all get their own name and write-up (Drow, not Elf: Drow), and classes all get their own write-up (Ranger, not Fighter: Ranger). Maybe I'm missing the big upside to this in your mind, because my mind doesn't lump Druids in with Clerics, and Paladins in with Fighters? Just like races, they're very different beasts to me, within the fiction, and that is more than enough to justify them getting their own class.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying the subclasses shouldn't get a full class writeup, or in any way be "less" than base classes.

I'll go one further and ask why have two bits of special lingo (base class, subclass) when one (class) will do?

It's needless complication.

Again, I'm not saying that the terms "base class" and "subclass" should actually appear in the book.

Does this mean that the fighter doesn't get to have any special or unique features, that aren't shared with the ranger and paladin? If so, why would anyone want to play a fighter?

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by subclass. I'm not saying the base class needs to be blank and the subclasses exist on top of that. I'm saying that if the thematic definition of one class is broad enough to encompass another class, that other class should be defined as existing within the definition of the first class. See what I mean? [I agree with your next post, "subclass" was definitely the wrong choice of word.]

Why can't you do this for your game? That's my first question.

What's stopping you simply using a naming convention at your table?

I could, but I wish I didn't have to.

What is the core game going to gain by implementing this structure?

Not much.

What is lost if it does? Aren't we stuck in a smaller design space if every Fighter sub-class must take principle design mechanics from the core class? (I would think so - and hope so by my preferences)

No--as I say, the subclasses do not have to be mechanically similar to the base classes.

My issue with removing core classes is they aren't as customizable through play. Sub-classes are too, everyone defines their ranger just a little bit differently, but overall the subclasses are the more defined role and narrower scopes. They define the setting more than "We have people who use magic, others who fight combats..." etc. Playing a core class means more opportunity to self define and even create one's own version of a subclass, if they chose to train others to be like them (rather than broadly as the core class).

Can you explain what you mean here? I am by no means campaigning for the removal of the subclasses, if that's what you're arguing against. If you're saying that defining the subclasses as subclasses makes them narrower than the base class, then my response is, they already are by definition narrower than the base class, and that's the point of calling them subclasses.

 

[Minigiant]

If you care to outline your criteria for what you think would be a "successful" theme, it might be possible. It's hard to say. I'm not saying that you're doing this, but in my experience, many people who say that a thing "can't be done" are usually moving the goalposts so that any attempt is destined to fail no matter how good it is.

My point is that currently a theme is just 2-3 feats. The problem is that most of these iconic classes have more than 2-3 iconic class features.

Lets take the ranger. The ranger was made to replicate Aragon. In order to do so, the ranger was given spells to replicate all the feature used expect of a travelling warrior since 1E-2E's skill system was weak. Between the class, skills, and spells; the ranger gained a lot of iconic ranger features. As the editions rolled, some became spell, others skills, and later powers. Slapping them back onto a fighter now as 3 feats would be impossible without also being unbalanced.
[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION]

Exactly. The problem is the old 1-3E fighter was the guy who "uses weapons and are good at using them,".

The problem is that general concept of "any old fighty guy" was weak and underpowered. Even back then.

So the fighter evolved into "master fighty guy". And the rogue became "master skill guy". And the wizard became "master arcane caster" and the cleric "master divine caster"

With that done, the other former subclasses could have more a more aspects stripped away to make room for their iconic features. And at that point, the base class was no longer the root, it was another branch.

 

[GX.Sigma]

My point is that currently a theme is just 2-3 feats. The problem is that most of these iconic classes have more than 2-3 iconic class features.

Lets take the ranger. The ranger was made to replicate Aragon. In order to do so, the ranger was given spells to replicate all the feature used expect of a travelling warrior since 1E-2E's skill system was weak. Between the class, skills, and spells; the ranger gained a lot of iconic ranger features. As the editions rolled, some became spell, others skills, and later powers. Slapping them back onto a fighter now as 3 feats would be impossible without also being unbalanced.

GX.Sigma

Exactly. The problem is the old 1-3E fighter was the guy who "uses weapons and are good at using them,".

The problem is that general concept of "any old fighty guy" was weak and underpowered. Even back then.

So the fighter evolved into "master fighty guy". And the rogue became "master skill guy". And the wizard became "master arcane caster" and the cleric "master divine caster"

With that done, the other former subclasses could have more a more aspects stripped away to make room for their iconic features. And at that point, the base class was no longer the root, it was another branch.

I'm starting to come around to your line of thinking. But then they'd have to define classes broadly enough to support a wide range of customization, but narrowly enough that they don't overlap. Which doesn't quite work yet:

Warriors
Fighter: Highly (conventionally) trained warrior.
Ranger: Unconventionally (perhaps self-) trained survivor/hunter.
Berserker/Barbarian: Untrained but powerful warrior.
Paladin: Highly (conventionally) trained warrior who also has divine powers and a code (??)
Warlord/Marshal: Highly (conventionally) trained warrior who's good at leading other warriors (??)

Rogues
Rogue: Sneaky, skilled, and/or charismatic rogue who can sneak attack.
Assassin_1: Sneaky, skilled rogue who can sneak attack (??)

Arcane Spellcasters
Wizard: Book-learned caster.
Sorcerer: Naturally talented caster.
Warlock: Deal-with-a-devil caster.

Divine Spellcasters
Cleric: Gains power from devotion to a chosen god, pantheon, religion, or philosophy.
Druid: Gains power from devotion to a chosen religion. (??)

Other
Assassin_2: Arcane rogue who uses shadow magic to sneak and kill.
Monk: Monastically trained martial artist.
Psionicist: Psionic power user.
Bard_1: Celtic warrior-poet who fights as a fighter and casts as a druid.
Bard_2: Arcane spellcaster-rogue.

If Assassin were a Rogue scheme and Druid were a Cleric domain, we'd be pretty close.

 

[JamesonCourage]

To me that's really weird, as I cannot think of Assassin as anything other than "Rogue with better sneak attack and worse trapfinding" or Druid as anything other than "Cleric of specific religion."

Yeah, I just can't really come to see it that way.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying the subclasses shouldn't get a full class writeup, or in any way be "less" than base classes.

I get that. I (personally) just don't see why it should be that way, when Assassin and Rogue are completely separate, and Fighter and Paladin are as well. But, that's just me, personally. I do get where you're coming from. Just politely disagreeing, and saying why. As always, play what you like