D&D 5E Thoughts on Mearls' Comments on Fighter Subclasses Lacking Identity

[GMforPowergamers]

My issue is this, if tomorrow they put out a duelist and it is based on a champion level of simplistic class features... it will get almost 0 use in my game. There is a group out there that feels the exact opposite and if it is as complex (Or in my hope more so) then the battle master it will see 0 in there game...

 

[MoonSong]

My issue is this, if tomorrow they put out a duelist and it is based on a champion level of simplistic class features... it will get almost 0 use in my game. There is a group out there that feels the exact opposite and if it is as complex (Or in my hope more so) then the battle master it will see 0 in there game...

The main problem is coverage. How many archetypes with strong assumptions and strong flavor do you need to provide to cover all possible fighter flavors? the stronger the subclass baked flavor the less characters it can cover. Sorcerers have this problem, only two subclasses and they both make pretty strong assumptions, I can at most convert a couple of sorcerers I've played with the phb alone, and I've played lots, all of my previous sorcerers can be easily made with even 3e on core-only. Same with the fighter, the class has to cover as many concepts as possible, and by hardcodding flavor you reduce the number of concepts you can cover.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The main problem is coverage. How many archetypes with strong assumptions and strong flavor do you need to provide to cover all possible fighter flavors? the stronger the subclass baked flavor the less characters it can cover. Sorcerers have this problem, only two subclasses and they both make pretty strong assumptions, I can at most convert a couple of sorcerers I've played with the phb alone, and I've played lots, all of my previous sorcerers can be easily made with even 3e on core-only. Same with the fighter, the class has to cover as many concepts as possible, and by hardcodding flavor you reduce the number of concepts you can cover.

I 98% agree with you. The problem comes with amount of coverage and expansions... you can have 2-3 really generic things that cover a lot, or you can have 30-50 very specific things that each cover very little but together cover the same range as most of that 2-3 generic. Then there is a spectrum between. In this case (D&D 5e) we have classes across the spectrum... Cleric and wizard at one end needing LOTs of choices, and warlocks getting to mix and match 2 sets of choices, and fighters... the problem comes with expansion, you give the wizard a new small covrage or two and it is great, doing so with the fighter has a bigger issue...

 

[MoonSong]

I 98% agree with you. The problem comes with amount of coverage and expansions... you can have 2-3 really generic things that cover a lot, or you can have 30-50 very specific things that each cover very little but together cover the same range as most of that 2-3 generic. Then there is a spectrum between. In this case (D&D 5e) we have classes across the spectrum... Cleric and wizard at one end needing LOTs of choices, and warlocks getting to mix and match 2 sets of choices, and fighters... the problem comes with expansion, you give the wizard a new small covrage or two and it is great, doing so with the fighter has a bigger issue...

You need to take into account the way expansion is going to happen, only a few extras at any time. And I'm of the opinion wizards need no further expansion. Maybe some setting specific subclasses, but only because they are mandatory, like high sorcerers and red wizards of Thay. I would handle defiling/preserving as an optional rule that could apply to other arcane casters, but basically more wizard subclasses would be redundant. Warlock patrons, sorcerer origins and cleric domains are better ways to spend thos new subclasses. If you want to expand fighters, combat styles and feats are the way to go.

 

[Quickleaf]

Totally agree about other subclasses feeling different both in terms of flavour AND mechanics (though the druid and ranger subclasses are, perhaps, a little too similar IMO); the fighter seems to be the only one where the difference is in mechanics, period.

Yep, that's the point that myself and others are trying to illustrate.

Sorcerers and Warlocks go very far in the thematic direction, and so they merit more sub-class coverage. Especially Sorcerer.

You have Wizards and Clerics with tons of sub-classes with a moderate amount of baked-in flavor.

You have Rogues, who have very clear archetypes with implications beyond mechanics: assassin, thief, and trickster.

Even Barbarians have a thematic distinction between berserkers & animal totem followers.

The Fighter distinction (leaving aside Eldritch Knight, which I have no problem with) between Champion & Battle Master is a purely mechanical one.

No other class in the PHB has sub-classes that are a purely mechanical distinction.

Compare:

Champion: The archetypal Champion focuses on the development of raw physical power honed to deadly perfection. Those who model themselves on this archetype combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows.

Thief:You hone your skills in the larcenous arts. Burglars, bandits, cutpurses, and other criminals typically follow this archetype, but so do rogues who prefer to think of themselves as professional treasure seekers, explorers, delvers, and investigators. In addition to improving your agility and stealth, you learn skills useful for delving into ancient ruins, reading unfamiliar languages, and using magic items you normally couldn’t employ.

If the Champion text felt anemic and directionless to you, compared to the Thief, that's because it is!

So I guess the question that leaves me with: Is there something UNIQUE about Fighters that mandates their sub-class design to being strictly mechanical?

Sounds like some folks are arguing "Yes, because there are so many possible types of fighters, we can't have thematic sub-classes for them all! But we can have thematic sub-classes for all wizards types, no problem."

To which I say: Who-the-what??

 

[Wik]

So I guess the question that leaves me with: Is there something UNIQUE about Fighters that mandates their sub-class design to being strictly mechanical?

Sounds like some folks are arguing "Yes, because there are so many possible types of fighters, we can't have thematic sub-classes for them all! But we can have thematic sub-classes for all wizards types, no problem."

To which I say: Who-the-what??

To put it briefly - fighters can exist in the real world. And when that happens, you can either go crazy trying to have a huge subset of rules to cater to every variation of reality (see Pathfinder), or you can just settle for a super broad write-up, and leave the fine-tuning for others.

We don't get this problem with the other classes because we accept that they don't exist in the real world, and so that they can follow the rules of the game. And the rules will have flavour attached to it, so we can accept that there are certain tones to diviners, for example. But if the game says "hey, all champions have x flavour", we can instantly think of alternatives.

Flavourful fighter variations are available - but I think wotc went the right direction with making the core 3 very broad mechanical choices.

Regarding the wizardly specializations: I like 'em. I think they were a great choice, and they're mostly pretty spot-on to reflect how the game should play. However, I kind of dislike the necromancer... I've always wanted to play a 2e-style good necromancer who uses the spells to oppose evil necromancers, and it's still not possible in fifth. But that's a whole other story.

 

[Quickleaf]

I snipped out your comment about the good necromancer because it's off-topic, but I totally agree.

To put it briefly - fighters can exist in the real world. And when that happens, you can either go crazy trying to have a huge subset of rules to cater to every variation of reality (see Pathfinder), or you can just settle for a super broad write-up, and leave the fine-tuning for others.

We don't get this problem with the other classes because we accept that they don't exist in the real world, and so that they can follow the rules of the game. And the rules will have flavour attached to it, so we can accept that there are certain tones to diviners, for example. But if the game says "hey, all champions have x flavour", we can instantly think of alternatives.

Rogues can exist in the real world.

According to your logic, they should receive a similar sub-class treatment to fighters: that is, rogue sub-classes should be exclusively mechanical distinctions.

Obviously, thief, assassin, and arcane trickster are not purely mechanical distinctions. And there haven't been many complaints that I've heard about rogue sub-classes in-person or online.

Hence, I refute your logic

 

[Hussar]

I think that's the issue in a nutshell. It's not that there are three broad interpretations of fighter. There are two - magic fighter and non-magic fighter. Flavour wise, nothing distinguishes a champion from a battlemaster. You can take pretty much any fighter archetype and apply champion or battlemaster to it, and there's no difference. The same is not true for rogues. I would not expect a pickpocket thief to have an assassin sub-class. Not that you can't do that, just that I wouldn't expect it.

OTOH, if I make a Solamnic Knight (to pick an example that I happen to be playing right now), which kind of fighter fits? We used a Champion with a few changes to abilities to make a Solamnic Knight. You could have just as easily used a Battlemaster and there would not have been any particular difference, other than strictly mechanical ones.

I do agree with the idea of broad fighter sub-classes. I think that's a good idea. You don't need to drill down too far. But, I also think there is very much room for two or three more subclasses which might fit specific archetypes better than Champion or Battlemaster. Solamnic Knight (or Samurai, or Knight or whatever name you want to give mounted heavy armored individual with social skills and social status) is a good example of this. A Leader of Men subclass is needed as well, IMO, to cover the Captain/Boss/Sergeant archetype, thus the whole "Warlording the Fighter" thread going on right now. Possibly an subclass for covering the "Duelist" "Musketeer" "Gentleman warrior" archetype as well.

Note, I realize that you CAN do these things with the existing subclasses, but, they don't fit exactly right. A new subclass covering these areas would fit better than existing subclasses. Not that you can't do it, but, that you can do it better.

 

[Minigiant]

I snipped out your comment about the good necromancer because it's off-topic, but I totally agree.


Rogues can exist in the real world.

According to your logic, they should receive a similar sub-class treatment to fighters: that is, rogue sub-classes should be exclusively mechanical distinctions.

Obviously, thief, assassin, and arcane trickster are not purely mechanical distinctions. And there haven't been many complaints that I've heard about rogue sub-classes in-person or online.

Hence, I refute your logic

Indeed. Oddly enough, 4e did rogues subclasses better. It uses mechanical and flavor distinctions.

There were 4 types and 5 builds by the end of 4e.

• Artful Dodger. The Dex/Cha Trickster Rogue
  • or The Dex/Anything Aerialist Rogue
• Brutal Scoundrel. The Dex/Str Brawny Rogue
• Ruthless Ruffian (MP). The Dex/Cha&Str Cutthroat Rogue
• Cunning Sneak (MP2). The Dex/Anything Shadow Rogue

You got the thief or assassin in every build but a unique flavor with each: the tricky duelist, the sneaky thief, the high-flying gymnast, the shadowy assassin, the deceptive killer, the dumb brute, the terrify gangster, etc.

And the brilliance was that the at-wills were in such away that you could choose not to go heavy on Cha or Str on your secondary ability score in the first book. You could just pick Dex powers or go Dex/Int with a multiclassed wizard for your arcane trickster or Dex/Wis and MC cleric for a first draft avenger. Some Generic subclasses and some Flavor subclasses.

But 5e, you're a thief, assassin, or a magic trickster. My "doctor who was a gymnast back in fantasy medical school".... yeah, he's a thief now. Student loans must have been bad. Dr Cool is stealing. All the honor is a lie, now.

I think that's the issue in a nutshell. It's not that there are three broad interpretations of fighter. There are two - magic fighter and non-magic fighter. Flavour wise, nothing distinguishes a champion from a battlemaster. You can take pretty much any fighter archetype and apply champion or battlemaster to it, and there's no difference. The same is not true for rogues. I would not expect a pickpocket thief to have an assassin sub-class. Not that you can't do that, just that I wouldn't expect it.

OTOH, if I make a Solamnic Knight (to pick an example that I happen to be playing right now), which kind of fighter fits? We used a Champion with a few changes to abilities to make a Solamnic Knight. You could have just as easily used a Battlemaster and there would not have been any particular difference, other than strictly mechanical ones.

I do agree with the idea of broad fighter sub-classes. I think that's a good idea. You don't need to drill down too far. But, I also think there is very much room for two or three more subclasses which might fit specific archetypes better than Champion or Battlemaster. Solamnic Knight (or Samurai, or Knight or whatever name you want to give mounted heavy armored individual with social skills and social status) is a good example of this. A Leader of Men subclass is needed as well, IMO, to cover the Captain/Boss/Sergeant archetype, thus the whole "Warlording the Fighter" thread going on right now. Possibly an subclass for covering the "Duelist" "Musketeer" "Gentleman warrior" archetype as well.

Note, I realize that you CAN do these things with the existing subclasses, but, they don't fit exactly right. A new subclass covering these areas would fit better than existing subclasses. Not that you can't do it, but, that you can do it better.

A little from column A and a little from column B.

If you do all mechanical, you can do all the types of fighters but you do some of them very poorly and almost none of the great.
If you do all flavor, you can do any archetype you choose very well but you even up excluding a lot of them and forcing groups to wait or attempt to make there own with various degrees of success.

 

[Corpsetaker]

What I don't want is pure class identification based on an ability. I don't want to be told I'm not a Knight unless I have ability X.

What Mearls should have done was have the Fighter class and then have the Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Eldritch Knight, and Battlemaster be the subclasses. If he wanted more flavour.