Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hafrogman" data-source="post: 5944691" data-attributes="member: 8858">I find the term subclass to be annoyingly vague.  It gets brought up a lot, but as a word, it's by an large meaningless.  What does it MEAN to be a subclass as opposed to a base class?  Even in the editions where it was used, there was never any clear pattern to how it was applied.  Different mechanics might be shared or not between the different class umbrellas.So what benefit does using the term mean?  What mechanical function does a subclass describe?  In the last thread I saw on this topic, the only answer I got was as a limit to multiclassing.  You couldn't multiclass fighter/ranger because they were both warriors.  Is that a specific limit we want?  Is the term subclass instrumental in implementing that limit?So rather than telling me you want the term subclass to return, why don't you say what you want it to actually DO in terms of the game and its mechanics.  In 5e as we've seen it, classes don't actually define a whole lot.  Should classes and subclass share:Weapon and armor proficiencies?  Do bards get more weapons/armor than rogues?Hit points/dice?  If they squish HD as they were discussing and wizards become d6, are they a rogue subclass?Class abilities?  Do assassins get rogue schemes plus more?  If so, why be a base class?</blockquote>