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

[Minigiant]

You know they aren't going to create a subclass for everything under the sun so it's rather pointless to make this argument. Sure they class can't cover everything but it does cover a lot more now than if Mike gets a hold of it.

It's not pointless. No one is asking for every subclass. Every other class doesn't have all it's main subclasses except wizard.

But they could have did a few.
A few. A couple. Like 2 in the PHB. 1 in the DMG.
It's the fighter, man!

 

[Jester David]

Cavalier: goes in the "Battlemaster" tier. Their shtick is basically they do mounted better []. Different Mechanic complexity. Something like a "Brawler" as a subclass, would fall here also. The class complexity/differentiation is mechanically based. No explicit or implied story or narrative assumptions need be made about these guys. You can make characters of a fairly wide diversity with just their mechanics making them different from other subclasses.

But is that a separate subclass or just a bunch of maneuvers tied to mounts?
And what about people who want to be the archtypal knight but don't want the complexity?

 

[SkidAce]

Reiterating what I said in the other thread:

/snip

Because the story of fighters is detached from their choice of subclass, you don't associate the description of a fighter with its abilities. A grizzled soldier with a sword and shield could equally be a champion or battlemaster, as could a phalanx fighter with a spear, or a mobile fencer with a flashing rapier, or the mounted knight with a lance. The description of the character tells you nothing of the build or class features.

/snip

I consider this a good thing, as it allows for the player to decide complexity AND "archetype". They could choose to play a swashbuckler champion, or a swashbuckler battlemaster. Both would be swashbucklers in the game, but have different styles/abilities (i.e. focus)

A grizzled soldier with a sword and shield SHOULD be able to be either. IMO.

 

[SkidAce]

TO be honest, the broadness and fact that you can take a Champion Fighter and make them ANYthing, works just fine for me. EVERY class needed one of those. A "general, simple, non-specific default" of the class. The fact this was an Evoker Wizard and a Thief Rogue are really open to debate. But a Champion Fighter fills the bill beautifully.

Then add other subclasses that get more specific or add complexity or narrow [to a point] in concept. So, other than the fact that "Battle Master" really does mean nothing, and the term warlord carried waaay too much baggage, I think the Fighter worked great.

Champion = generic default
Battlemaster = added mechanic complexity
Eldritch knight = added mechanic complexity and story/narrative restrictions/specific assumptions [in this case, learning/having access to arcane magic]

I would have much preferred a "generalist Wizard" default. A "basic" thief-Rogue default. And I suppose "general/pantheon-wide or cause/alignment-specific" cleric. Specifying into Domains.

BUT, we gotta works with what we gots.

[EDIT to add] So basically,what we should see in the case of additional subclasses coming out, would [to my mind] be something like this...

Cavalier: goes in the "Battlemaster" tier. Their shtick is basically they do mounted better []. Different Mechanic complexity. Something like a "Brawler" as a subclass, would fall here also. The class complexity/differentiation is mechanically based. No explicit or implied story or narrative assumptions need be made about these guys. You can make characters of a fairly wide diversity with just their mechanics making them different from other subclasses.

Things like: Warlord, Gladiator, Knight would be en par with the Eldritch Knight. They have/need both mechanics and story/flavor assumptions to make them different enough to warrant their creation instead of just playing a champion with feats/skills/backgrounds that can give you a "gladiator" character or a battlemaster + feats/skills/backgrounds that give you a "warlord." Those options are still completely valid and available for players, but to make these concepts a subclass of their own, they need the mechanics and the flavor specificity to, for me, justify their existence.

At the same time, I would very much like bloat to be avoided. So just because someone can come up with a synonym for "warrior" that has a slightly different connotation or mechanic speciality, is not, to me, a "good enough" reason to make it a subclass.

Does any of this make sense or am I just talking out my arse/making things more complicated than they needs be?

Makes sense and I agree.

 

[Minigiant]

But is that a separate subclass or just a bunch of maneuvers tied to mounts?
And what about people who want to be the archtypal knight but don't want the complexity?

In a perfect world, there would be both a simple knight (horseman) and a complex knight (cavalier)

Or they could have went the warlock route and make two choices. First flavor then complexity like how pact and patron are seperate.

 

[Evenglare]

Even though they didn't.

Oh I agree 100%. I love the fighter, but it doesn't inspire confidence when they took that long and then they don't like what they came up with.

 

[SkidAce]

Simple knight is a champion, complex knight is a battlemaster. But I think y'all understand what I'm trying to say. Works for me as is, and has an openness I like.

But the other way wouldn't hurt anything. Game on.

 

[redrick]

It's always super reassuring that we get told over and over that they want to get 5e RIGHT so that's why it took so long to release. Then a year after release the manager and game designer says they messed up with the fighter....

Everybody is always going to look back at a project and say, "man, in retrospect, I wish I'd done this!"

Instead of saying, "see, look, even though they tried to get it perfect, they still screwed it up," why not be glad that Mike's biggest regret is that ... the names for the fighter subclasses weren't as cool. Not to mention that a lot of the players are perfectly happy with the way it turned out.

I'll agree with others and say that I'm happy with the fighter as-is, though I can't knock the alternative because I haven't seen it. For a character I'm playing (a dirt-poor halfling from a remote fishing village who believes that, if he just tries really hard and believes in himself, he will become a king), I chose the Champion subclass not because of the mechanics, but because my character was obviously a Champion fighter. The simplicity of the build is a nice perk.

Classes like the warlock, on the other hand, with TONS of flavor baked in, can be a bit trickier, because there's more work for the player and the DM if they're trying to integrate a backstory into the campaign. Or, at least, that's been the case in my limited experience.

 

[Jester David]

I consider this a good thing, as it allows for the player to decide complexity AND "archetype". They could choose to play a swashbuckler champion, or a swashbuckler battlemaster. Both would be swashbucklers in the game, but have different styles/abilities (i.e. focus)

A grizzled soldier with a sword and shield SHOULD be able to be either. IMO.

Except they don't choose "archetype", they just choose complexity.

Looking at famous fantasy warriors (Lancelot, Conan, Boromir, Jamie Lanister, Madmartigan, Hercules, Indigo Montoya, John Carter, Flash Gordon) you could make an argument for each being a champion or a battle master. The choice of subclass does nothing to define the character.

Going to a new gaming table and saying "I'm a battle master fighter" doesn't define the class as all to anyone at the table, not compared to "open hand monk" or "illusionist" or "life cleric". To a new player who knows nothing of the mechanics, they know exactly what an "assassin" is compared to a "thief" or even something as unfamiliar as a bard with the "college of lore" versus "college of valour". The distinction is clear. Even something as different as the "path of the totem warrior" can be explained without going into mechanics at all. You can't do the same for the champion versus the battle master, as the names mean nothing. There's no story conveyed, no lore suggested, and no implication of role.

In a perfect world, there would be both a simple knight (horseman) and a complex knight (cavalier)

Or they could have went the warlock route and make two choices. First flavor then complexity like how pact and patron are seperate.

Do we need two different archetypes for the same concept? That's a crazy amount of redundancy, and inevitably one will always be stronger than the others.

In a perfect world, the complexity would have been independent of the choice of subclass. Like you suggest with the warlock analogy.

 

[MoonSong]

In a perfect world, there would be both a simple knight (horseman) and a complex knight (cavalier)

Or they could have went the warlock route and make two choices. First flavor then complexity like how pact and patron are seperate.

They do have two choice points. The battlemaster/champion and the combat style, combat style does more to define the archetype than the other. And I think it works. We are just missing "Unarmed warrior" and "Exotic weapon warrior" combat styles.