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

[MoonSong]

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.

Maybe you don't remember, but I do. And what I remember is that all of these flavorful subclasses were problematic, they stepped too much on the backgrounds territory -basically all of them ended up becoming backgrounds or part of backgrounds-, and were very single minded, not very flexible and didn't cover enough ground. I remember complaints like "I shouldn't need to be a fighter to be a gladiator", "I shouldn't need to be a gladiator -with all its trappings- to use exotic weapons", "I should be able to use any kind of weapon as a gladiator, not just this pre-approved list", "This gladiator doesn't feel like a gladiator.", "This gladiator feel too monolithic."

Really, I can only wish the sorcerer had been on the open playtest, so we had more generic more inclusive subclasses for it too.

 

[Sunseeker]

Taking from MMO design, fighter subclasses are generally differentiated by weapon focus. I know not forcing people to take specific weapons was a big thing in this editions, which as Mearls rightfully laments, leaves fighters in all specs as wepaon jack-of-all-trades but masters of none, they're not even masters of all either. Typically fighters are broken down into a defensive fighter (aka: tank), a "great weapon" fighter and a "speed" fighter. With so many weapon proficiences at their disposal, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to break the fighter into a "generalist" perhaps the Champion "master of all" and a defensive and offensive specialist fighter.

Looking at all the other classes, they almost all break down along those lines by which the fighter does not. We've got a druid split up into a caster and a shifter druid, the two major elements of the druid class. The paladin breaks down into a protector, a healer and a offensive paladin. The monk splits along classic asian fantasy/kung-fu lines.

While each of the fighters specs has different elements, the resultant play from each of them is not substantially different. The choices you'll make in building and optimization are going to be largely the same. It all just comes down to if you want to cast spells, use maneuvers or well...not.

I think the Champion makes a great generalist fighter. I think both the Eldrich Knight and the Battlemaster could have used something more to help define their style.

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe you don't remember, but I do. And what I remember is that all of these flavorful subclasses were problematic, they stepped too much on the backgrounds territory -basically all of them ended up becoming backgrounds or part of backgrounds-, and were very single minded, not very flexible and didn't cover enough ground. I remember complaints like "I shouldn't need to be a fighter to be a gladiator", "I shouldn't need to be a gladiator -with all its trappings- to use exotic weapons", "I should be able to use any kind of weapon as a gladiator, not just this pre-approved list", "This gladiator doesn't feel like a gladiator.", "This gladiator feel too monolithic."

Really, I can only wish the sorcerer had been on the open playtest, so we had more generic more inclusive subclasses for it too.

I remember.
And the best answer was the rename the gladiator to something like the reaver, reaper, or exoticist. Not scrap the whole thing.

"I shouldn't need to be a fighter to be a gladiator. But the subclass features are cool. Perhaps change the name of it to the slayer."

 

[Azurewraith]

I dont mind the flavorless fighter its given me free reign on my character. Im playing a 4th level fighter(battle master) who has found an ancient tome with a form of polearm fighting revolving around standing still and letting your opponent enter your "kill zone". So i picked up polearm mastery and sentinel and the lunge and pushing attack maneuvers and plan on MCing to ranger 3 to get horde breaker.

I do have issue with the champions name though as well they champion nothing and strongly side with the veteran camp

 

[Li Shenron]

I remember the complaint that the Gladiator had a too specific image, several people liked the mechanics but didn't want the associated image of someone competing in an arena.

As for "I shouldn't need to be a fighter to be a gladiator", the same could be said about "I shouldn't need to be a ranger to be a hunter", "I shouldn't need to be a rogue to be an assassin" and a few more. But there are other ways to model those character concepts, 5e giving possibly more tools than ever between backgrounds/proficiencies, spells, multiclassing and feats. You can be a badass Wizard-Assassin as a concept, just forget about the Rogue's Assassin own specific features. With all the options of 5e, is someone still thinks he can't be an Assassin without taking the Assassin subclass, the problem is only his own...

---

On a partially related note, maybe it could help if future Fighter's subclasses are designed to be more specific than before? Gladiator, Knight, Battlemaster they are all still fairly generic. What about designing more unique Fighter subclasses such as Gladiator of Krynn, Purple Dragon Knight or Dwarven Battlemaster?

 

[Arial Black]

On 'I shouldn't have to be a rogue to be an assassin', that's what multi-classing is for! Be a rogue (assassin) 3/fighter X, and be a fighter who is also an assassin.

More generally, a game with class-based characters has the problem of unrealistic inflexibility; a problem that multi-classing solves. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gadget]

Well, an interesting discussion. I'm not sure were I come down, except I far prefer the name Champion over Veteran. Champion is much more evocative than veteran, and conjures up the image of someone standing with foot planted on the neck of fallen foe. Veteran, while implying competence and experience, does not have the same ring to it. It is more like someone who was, at best, a contender, not necessarily a 'champion'. In the ancient and medieval times, many issues were resolved by both parties sending forth a champion to duke it out in a winner take all bout; whether it was a conflict between two armies (David and Goliath anyone?), or between two feuding nobles on a matter of honor, they chose the biggest, baddest fighter that stood out and distinguished himself from among his warrior brethren to represent them on the field of battle.

So, you ask: a champion of what?

And Queen answers: OF THE WORRRRLLLD (Or whatever you damn well want to be)!

 

[Minigiant]

Well, an interesting discussion. I'm not sure were I come down, except I far prefer the name Champion over Veteran. Champion is much more evocative than veteran, and conjures up the image of someone standing with foot planted on the neck of fallen foe. Veteran, while implying competence and experience, does not have the same ring to it. It is more like someone who was, at best, a contender, not necessarily a 'champion'. In the ancient and medieval times, many issues were resolved by both parties sending forth a champion to duke it out in a winner take all bout; whether it was a conflict between two armies (David and Goliath anyone?), or between two feuding nobles on a matter of honor, they chose the biggest, baddest fighter that stood out and distinguished himself from among his warrior brethren to represent them on the field of battle.

So, you ask: a champion of what?

And Queen answers: OF THE WORRRRLLLD (Or whatever you damn well want to be)!

But my favorite fighter that I play wasn't a champion. In fact, his younger brother was the Champion. He was the loud oldest brother and as the eldest was the Heir. He was really good at fighting and always knew how to survive a battle or a war. Lord Hack was just a guy forced to fight because "them the rules". Just a loud war veteran who knew how to kill and not be killed.

Not that Champion is a bad name for a fighter archetype. Just not the name for the "basic simple fighter". The Champion could be simple, with some sort of personal morale bonus that helped the champion fight on for the cause. An Unstoppable Force when the battle is on their side and an Immovable Force when the tide is against them. Something like (+X to damage rolls and checks when above 50% HP, +X to saving throws and AC when below 50% HP) Feel like a Champion in name and mechanics.

 

[Quickleaf]

Not that Champion is a bad name for a fighter archetype. Just not the name for the "basic simple fighter". The Champion could be simple, with some sort of personal morale bonus that helped the champion fight on for the cause. An Unstoppable Force when the battle is on their side and an Immovable Force when the tide is against them. Something like (+X to damage rolls and checks when above 50% HP, +X to saving throws and AC when below 50% HP) Feel like a Champion in name and mechanics.

I was just wondering about someone's claim upthread that fighter sub-classes should differentiate themselves according to weapon of choice. For example, a defender is sword & shield, slayers is great weapon, duelist is two-weapon, etc. That's certainly one axis along which fighters can be differentiated, albeit one limited to combat.

What's interesting about the names Champion and Veteran are that they imply something about the fighter's connection to the world and its people. For example you are a Champion of the People or a Champion of Kirkwall - you can expect your name to carry weight among those people. Or you are a Veteran of the Dragon Wars, or a Veteran of the Crusades - you can expect to be familiar with various personalities and events from the war.

In my mind, making those sorts of distinctions implicit in fighter sub-classes is far more interesting than focusing exclusively on the combat abilities.