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

[Curmudjinn]

They could've just flipped through AD&Ds Complete Fighter for distinct kits...I mean subclasses. I notice a lot of people must play a very specific stereotype of the class they choose, which could be something Mearls enjoys as well.
Few people expect the leather jack-wearing cutthroat with scars and tats to be the party's wizard.
Or an honorable,well-kempt soldier in chain and heraldry that is actually a barbarian.

Make it yours.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would argue that the 4 CLASSIC CORE D&D classes - fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric - should have more sub-classes than the other classes because they are (a) iconic, (b) have had more time to foster variants, and (c) anecdotally seem to still be the most frequently played. This argument is already halfway carried by the PHB which presents 7 sub-classes for cleric & 8 sub-classes for wizard. We could ask: Why did fighters and rogues get the short end of the stick compared to their magical CLASSIC CORE class brethren?

Even while keeping in mind that the PHB is not the end of it for subclasses, I totally agree with you. They already had at least 5-6 Rogue subclasses during the playtest, and they had a couple more Fighter subclasses too, although some of their abilities were carried over to other areas of the game, and so they would need some additional design nowadays.

At least for Rogues, we still don't have a subclass that fits well with the most iconic roguish character in fiction, which is Indiana Jones. He's not a thief, not an assassin, not magical, and not much of a fighter either (i.e. Swashbuckler), yet he's the most Rogue of all

---

Back about the topic of identity, it's true that Fighter subclasses are quite 'generic', but there are others who aren't significantly more specific either. The Berskerer is just a Barbarian++. Lore Bard and Valor Bard are just Bards, a bit tilted towards knowledge of combat abilities. Life Cleric heals more, War Cleric fights more, Knowledge Cleric knows more. The Hunter is quite a lot generic, the Beastmaster has a pet. Paladin of Devotion vs Paladin of Vengeance, in many ways still paladins, only different methods. They all have a bit more flavor than a Champion or a Battlemaster, but not much more.

Others are indeed more evocative. Paladin of the Ancients, Great Old One Warlock, Totem Barbarian, Storm Cleric...

---
IMHO we shouldn't underestimate also the power of names.

"Champion" really is a huge miss. Champion of who or what? It could have been the Champion of a Lord or a Cause, but the abilities do not reflect that at all. There is nothing that 'activates' or 'works better' when the Champion is fighting for her faction or cause.

I stand on my opinion that if they had called it Veteran, it would have had already an improved image and more identity, even with its current bland abilities. Immediately my mental image of the character adds scars, seasoned body, wise gaze, conquered trinkets and badges... And it would also fit the abilities better, because they all represent durability and efficiency, which is exactly what someone gets by doing more or less the same thing over and over i.e. being a 'veteran' of something (the word's original meaning is "aged").

 

[Quickleaf]

At least for Rogues, we still don't have a subclass that fits well with the most iconic roguish character in fiction, which is Indiana Jones. He's not a thief, not an assassin, not magical, and not much of a fighter either (i.e. Swashbuckler), yet he's the most Rogue of all

Tomb Raider! Woot!

Back about the topic of identity, it's true that Fighter subclasses are quite 'generic', but there are others who aren't significantly more specific either. The Berskerer is just a Barbarian++. Lore Bard and Valor Bard are just Bards, a bit tilted towards knowledge of combat abilities. Life Cleric heals more, War Cleric fights more, Knowledge Cleric knows more. The Hunter is quite a lot generic, the Beastmaster has a pet. Paladin of Devotion vs Paladin of Vengeance, in many ways still paladins, only different methods. They all have a bit more flavor than a Champion or a Battlemaster, but not much more.

Yeah it's a matter of degree. While you're right about the Berserker, I think most of these are a good deal more thematically differentiated than you're making them out to be...

Bards: Lore Bard is the Celtic bard who keeps the clan's stories. Valor Bard is a Nordic skald who *makes* stories. That implies a whole host of differences in how they approach adventuring and relate to others!

Clerics: The difference between a War and Knowledge cleric is the difference between a Thor and an Oghma or an Ares and an Apollo - there's a huuuge difference there. The design of the sub-classes is straightforward but back up that thematic difference. More than the fighter sub-classes does (sure, we can debate how much more).

Paladins: The Tenets of Devotion and Tenets of Vengeance are night and day! There's not way a player approaching one of these sub-classes would be confused or ambiguous about what the sub-class represents. The capstone abilities really emphasize that difference, and its there in subtle ways in other abilities too.

IMHO we shouldn't underestimate also the power of names.

"Champion" really is a huge miss. Champion of who or what? It could have been the Champion of a Lord or a Cause, but the abilities do not reflect that at all. There is nothing that 'activates' or 'works better' when the Champion is fighting for her faction or cause.

Lack of clarity in design begets lacks of clarity in naming. This is a good example.

I stand on my opinion that if they had called it Veteran, it would have had already an improved image and more identity, even with its current bland abilities. Immediately my mental image of the character adds scars, seasoned body, wise gaze, conquered trinkets and badges... And it would also fit the abilities better, because they all represent durability and efficiency, which is exactly what someone gets by doing more or less the same thing over and over i.e. being a 'veteran' of something (the word's original meaning is "aged").

Makes sense!

 

[Minigiant]

IMHO we shouldn't underestimate also the power of names.

"Champion" really is a huge miss. Champion of who or what? It could have been the Champion of a Lord or a Cause, but the abilities do not reflect that at all. There is nothing that 'activates' or 'works better' when the Champion is fighting for her faction or cause.

I stand on my opinion that if they had called it Veteran, it would have had already an improved image and more identity, even with its current bland abilities. Immediately my mental image of the character adds scars, seasoned body, wise gaze, conquered trinkets and badges... And it would also fit the abilities better, because they all represent durability and efficiency, which is exactly what someone gets by doing more or less the same thing over and over i.e. being a 'veteran' of something (the word's original meaning is "aged").

I'm getting more pro-Veteran by the day as the name for the simple fighter.
It displays that you aren't a noob, that you have all the basic features and a little more, but the name is generic enough that it doesn't limit the image. Add in a tool or language and you have the image of a fighter who knows what he's doing, knows the basics, picked up a trick or two, nudge is vanilla enough to be anything.

"I made John Grey. He's a Veteran Fighter." The image clarifies but not too much.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, "Veteran" was the AD&D 1st level title for Fighters so it's got legacy.

Subsequent level titles included Warrior, Swordsman, Hero, Swashbuckler, Myrmidion, (surprise surprise) Champion, Superhero, and Lord.

 

[Uchawi]

Back about the topic of identity, it's true that Fighter subclasses are quite 'generic', but there are others who aren't significantly more specific either. The Berskerer is just a Barbarian++. Lore Bard and Valor Bard are just Bards, a bit tilted towards knowledge of combat abilities. Life Cleric heals more, War Cleric fights more, Knowledge Cleric knows more. The Hunter is quite a lot generic, the Beastmaster has a pet. Paladin of Devotion vs Paladin of Vengeance, in many ways still paladins, only different methods. They all have a bit more flavor than a Champion or a Battlemaster, but not much more.

Others are indeed more evocative. Paladin of the Ancients, Great Old One Warlock, Totem Barbarian, Storm Cleric...

---
IMHO we shouldn't underestimate also the power of names.

"Champion" really is a huge miss. Champion of who or what? It could have been the Champion of a Lord or a Cause, but the abilities do not reflect that at all. There is nothing that 'activates' or 'works better' when the Champion is fighting for her faction or cause.

I believe the mechanics of the class do more to identify its role versus a name, but the name does help. Regardless, the mechanics of the fighter class are disjoined when comparing subclasses, and even if the fighter only existed as the champion, its mechanical distinction when considering choices available starting at first level and going forward is poor.

It makes no sense to me why other classes can make meaningful choices at first level, and the fighter is left behind. Anyone can choose skills, backgrounds, and/or items the character/class may use. With weapons and armor being so generic in comparison to spells, there is not much for a fighter can do to distinguish themselves except to role play, and once again that is a choice that is available to all players.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, "Veteran" was the AD&D 1st level title for Fighters so it's got legacy.

Subsequent level titles included Warrior, Swordsman, Hero, Swashbuckler, Myrmidion, (surprise surprise) Champion, Superhero, and Lord.

I am kinda leaning to 3 "simple martial archetypes"

The Veteran. The Veteran gets the Improved Critical chance and the extra fighting style. Gets a bonus tool or language instead of Remarkable Athlete It shows the "I have been fighting for a while and have picked up a few things. I also know how to bypass defenses due to experience and veterancy"

The Blademaster. The Blade master deals bonus damage with slashing weapons and can deal slashing damage with daggers, rapiers, and shortswords. This is generic enough for Axes, Swords, and Glaives and gives the image of a warrior who "mastered the blade".
The Hero. The hero gets more defensive features than the rest like bonus AC and proficiency in all saves. The hero gets a special buff when using Action Surge or Second Wind. It displays the "Heroes are tough to kill and when they steal the scene, watch out"
---

Again I blame the focus on getting the mechanics of the fighter right sucking up the time for flavor aspects. The fact that Mearls is thinking about flavor at this point means time was wasted and the team just went back to old game design for flavor.

"Deadlines coming. I gets fighters are vanilla."

 

[Mephista]

"Deadlines coming. I gets fighters are vanilla."

I think its more that they were so focused on the mechanics and the styles that people wanted to play (that was a huge issue) that it kind of just slid out. The Fighter Problem of lacking flavor has been something its struggled with from the beginning, and its easy to forget that you need to bake in so much more flavor that its easy to overlook.

 

[Li Shenron]

It makes no sense to me why other classes can make meaningful choices at first level, and the fighter is left behind. Anyone can choose skills, backgrounds, and/or items the character/class may use. With weapons and armor being so generic in comparison to spells, there is not much for a fighter can do to distinguish themselves except to role play, and once again that is a choice that is available to all players.

Well, the Fighter chooses only her Fighting Style, the Rogue chooses her Expertise, the Cleric chooses her Cantrips and Domain, and the Wizard chooses her Cantrips and six known spells. I don't remember ATM what other non-Basic classes can choose at 1st level. As you say, everybody also chooses background/skills and weapons/armors.

It is of course true that spellcasters always have a lot more to choose compared to others, whether it is spells known or spells prepared.

But I don't think the Fighter is very penalized at 1st level from lack of choices. The only unique choice is Fighting Style (a major choice on the long term, but still a choice you can make in half a minute, and from only 6 options) but overall you will distinguish yourself later, unless you choose the Champion subclass and eschew feats.

 

[Minigiant]

I think its more that they were so focused on the mechanics and the styles that people wanted to play (that was a huge issue) that it kind of just slid out. The Fighter Problem of lacking flavor has been something its struggled with from the beginning, and its easy to forget that you need to bake in so much more flavor that its easy to overlook.

I'm not blaming them on focusing on Fighter mechanics. It is a big issue.

I blame the fans more for giving wonky feedback during the play test. Down voting stuff with poor explanations why and thus forcing the design team to guess over and over with little to go off of due to conflicting feedback. This sucked up so much focus that flavor was forgotten.