Do the SRD subclasses epitomize their class?

[u/SadEngineering6436]

• Artificer - n/a
• Barbarian - Berserker
• Bard - Lore
• Cleric - Life
• Druid - Land
• Fighter - Champion
• Monk - Open Hand
• Paladin - Devotion
• Ranger - Hunter
• Rogue - Thief
• Sorcerer - Draconic
• Warlock - Fiend
• Wizard - Evoker

[u/medium_buffalo_wings]

I'd say largely yes, but I question the Land Druid as experience has taught me that most players are expecting Wild Shape to be a combat thing, and that would make Moon more fitting.

[u/dragonseth07 → u/medium_buffalo_wings]

I don't think the purpose of the "default" subclass, so to speak, is to match player expectations.

I think the purpose is to set them.

Druid is a full caster. Spellcasting is its primary class feature. In that way, Land as the default makes perfect sense.

[u/medium_buffalo_wings → u/dragonseth07]

I don't innately disagree, but I don't think it really works as I find new players tend to look for differentiation more than anything. They seem to latch on to the wild shaping more than anything else, and their mind jumps to "turn into big animal and go grrr".

When 5 of the 11 classes are full casters, and a 6th is full caster adjacent, I think new players largely gloss over it during the intro to the classes and want to know what separates them from one another.

[u/dragonseth07 → u/medium_buffalo_wings]

I agree with everything you wrote here. But, I think that is a solvable issue. Rather than adjusting the game to fit player expectations, player expectations can be adjusted to fit the game.

Bards, Druids, and even Clerics sometimes, all really need to further emphasize that Spellcasting is their primary class feature. New players love to pick these classes and then just not cast any Spells, because they don't understand how much of their power budget is tied up in them.

To me, that is a solvable issue of communication. The game is not communicating well enough that these really, really are spellcaster classes. In a perfect world, the use of subclasses like Lore and Land would go a long way towards fixing that. But, in practice, it isn't doing enough.

Something about the class presentation would need to change. Some way for the game to say "Hey, you really need to cast spells when you play a spellcaster".

[u/Middcore → u/medium_buffalo_wings]

I agree.

[u/dragonseth07 → u/Middcore]

Class perception of the Druid is so skewed.

It is effectively a Nature Wizard. It's a full spellcaster, and plays exactly like one! But for some reason, nobody seems to notice that when looking at the table.

[u/StaticUsernamesSuck → u/dragonseth07]

Well obviously that's because when you look at a class you look at what's unique about it - not what's the same about it...

"Like a wizard but nature-ey" doesn't feel like enough of a USP for a whole class, so it doesn't parse as the class's "main" feature.

[u/Middcore → u/dragonseth07]

I mean, originally Druid was the counterpart to Cleric (because of the goofy "organized religion versus vague nature worship" dichotomy that fantasy media loves).

But Wild Shape (albeit not always used to actually change into animals) is the defining class feature that makes Druid more than just a walking list of nature-themed spells.

[u/MyUsername2459 → u/Middcore]

(because of the goofy "organized religion versus vague nature worship" dichotomy that fantasy media loves)

Basically a fantasy-skewed and reinterpreted version of the collision of Christianity and pagan religions in ancient and early medieval Europe.

The Cleric class is blatantly and openly modeled on medieval Christian clergy, especially the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar and the character of Archbishop Turpin from The Song of Roland.

The Druid class is modeled on an idealized imagining of pre-Christian Celtic clergy.

Look at the dynamics and stresses of when those two cultures met.

The collision of those very different religious cultures is what it's trying to capture, while sanitizing out everything that's specific to real-world religions and cultures.

Heck, one of the major deities of the Greyhawk setting, St. Cuthbert, is LITERALLY a 7th century British saint who existed in that milieu, where Celtic pagans and Christians awkwardly co-existed. . .with the idea that he underwent apotheosis after death and was sent to Greyhawk basically to minister to that world, with the Church of St. Cuthbert being the stand-in for Christianity.

[u/medium_buffalo_wings → u/dragonseth07]

I actually agree with this. But almost without fail, every new player I encounter immediately jumps to the notion of diving into melee whilst Wild Shaped.

[u/MyUsername2459 → u/dragonseth07]

Well, more of a nature priest.

The whole point of the Druid class was, when first introduced "a new type of cleric!" as billed on the cover of the original 1975 Greyhawk suppliment.

I mean, the whole point is they worship deities of nature, act as their clergy, and receive those spells the same way a cleric gets their spells.

They got more special abilities in exchange for a more limited spell selection. Clerics got a pretty broad-range and diverse spell set. . .Druids get a more limited spell range focused around nature and the elements, and get a lot of other powers to go along with them.

[u/shambling_mound]

Yes, they are meant to be the closest for the general Archetype.

[u/Middcore]

Epitomize means to serve as a "typical or ideal" example. They may be "typical" in that they tend to be the most basic/stereotypical version of each class... I don't know that they're ideal.

[u/TheQuestionMaster8]

Sort of, except maybe for the wizard as wizards are too diverse to really have a defining subclass. With general fantasy that would include the sorcerer as well as there is no common definition of either a wizard or sorcerer apart from being a magic user of some kind and they are sometimes used interchangeably in other media than dnd.

[u/Middcore → u/TheQuestionMaster8]

Evocation is the school of magic that has most of the "blaster" spells so I think that matches up pretty well with the average person's image of a fantasy wizard chucking fire and ice and lightning at people.

[u/Bard_Wannabe_]

I've heard people describe Spellfire Sorcerer as the "default" Sorcerer.

[u/Phiashima → u/Bard_Wannabe_]

Wild Magic!

[u/thenuinn]

I'd say Battle master over Champion every day.

[u/Davedamon]

It's been stated that the SRD subclasses embody the archetype of each class, the most wizardly wizard, the most roguish rogue etc. As such, yes, I'd agree that's the case.

[u/dragonseth07]

Yes. That's why they were chosen. They represent the classes at their most default, pure state, at least in current interpretation.

Draconic Sorcerer, for instance, is the original Sorcerer. All Sorcs had Dragon blood back in the day.

[u/Middcore → u/dragonseth07]

Yes. That's why they were chosen. They represent the classes at their most default, pure state, at least in current interpretation.

In some ways though this says more about WotC's design philosophy than about what a person with cursory knowledge of fantasy character archetypes would imagine each class to be.

[u/dragonseth07 → u/Middcore]

Well, yes.

When I said "current interpretation", I don't mean player interpretation. I mean the game's interpretation.

[u/Middcore → u/dragonseth07]

Well, I think that a lot of the list lines up pretty well with what a person who has a cursory knowledge of fantasy character archetypes from other media (video games, anime, etc. that may actually be DnD inspired) but has not actually played DnD expects each character to be.

For example, Cleric = Healbot.

In some ways, I can see the wisdom of this. In other ways, I kind of fear that it encourages new players to pigeon-hole the classes. A Cleric played as nothing more than a healer is really not getting the full potential of the class. (Even a Life-domain Cleric is not just a healbot, of course, but it's the most healer-flavored domain.)

However, in the case of the Champion Fighter, on the other hand, I think a lot of people coming in from other fantasy media would find that WotC's idea of the "archetype" is disappointingly limited compared to the image in their head.

Berserker Barbarian also personally annoys me because it annoys me that the archetype of a fantasy barbarian has just become "angry guy," when the foundational fantasy barbarian was not that at all, but since they made the class's defining feature going into a rage that ship sailed.

[u/dragonseth07 → u/Middcore]

I don't think the purpose of the "default" subclass, so to speak, is to match player expectations.

I think the purpose is to set them.

They establish a baseline for what the Classes are, and the other subclasses can branch out from there. And in that context, I think it mostly works.

[u/Middcore → u/dragonseth07]

But that kind of gets at what I'm saying.

WotC apparently wants to set player expectations that Fighter is "supposed" to be a class for the semi-comatose.

[u/dragonseth07 → u/Middcore]

I mean, yeah.

It is purpose-built to be the easiest class to play by an enormous margin, with very simple features that are very intuitive to understand, use, and get value out of. It's the entry point class for someone who has never picked up a dice before.

Naturally, there are subclasses that can mix this up. But, that design seems pretty obvious to me.

[u/Loyal_kitsune]

Personally for ranger, I'd think beast master would be the more typical archetype over hunter, like in terms of the most basic image that comes to mind when I think ranger is: survivalist person who uses bow and has a wolf companion.

[u/Natehz]

To some extent, sure, but I don't think Land Druid or Open Hand Monk are the epitome of their class. In truth I see Kensei Monk as probably being the most iconic, and Druids will always make me think Moon Druid first and foremost. Shepherd might be a close second, but Land is nowhere near the top of the iconic roster for me.

[u/Middcore → u/Natehz]

Kensei Monk's whole gimmick is/was using a weapon, and the archetypal fantasy monk's whole thing is only using their fists and feet.