Basically yes. For some classes (i.e Rogue) the base class gives most of what you’d expect in a Rogue while the subclass gives you some new tricks (i.e. Thief = Batmanish, sneaky w/ lots of quick item use). Other classes gain must of their abilities from their subclass (i.e Wizard). Base wizard is all about spell casting, while the schools shape how those spells are used. Evocation school allows you to hurt things more while Illusion allows you to better mess w/ peoples minds. Oversimplification but best I could do w/out breaking down the entire player’s handbook. If interested in 5e take a look at the free basic rules as Brandes mentioned.

So “subclass” isn’t a class unto itself that is under the “umbrella” of a more “basic” class. It is instead the particular “expression” of the main class. So every character is a particular subclass of the named class.

I should probably learn the 5e system. If for no other reason than to have the knowledge under my belt.

The super-short explanation for 5e subclasses is that at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level (depending on the class), you choose from a short list of paths. Some classes have a lot more options that others. For example, all wizards are “specialists” in 5e, and their school is their subclass. A cleric gets one domain, and that is their subclass. And so on. The fighter as presented in the free Basic rules is the Champion subclass, which is one of the three options in the Player’s Handbook.

Ah, well that makes sense. I suppose that I’ve just used the term “subclass” as a general “catch all” to include any class that mechanically attached and thematically part of a “parent class”.

As in 1e Clerics and Druids. Clerics were the “divine class”. And Druids were a “divine class” as well, except they drew their “divine energy” from nature. Plus there’s the fact that an oversimplified way to describe it was that Druids were the Clerics of true neutral alignment. At least that’s my own brain’s way of organizing the information.

I haven’t read anything past the original free download start for 5e, so I don’t know how classes/subclasses work there, so that’s perhaps why I became confused.

And yes, please keep these up. I am genuinely riveted to reading each article as it posts!

Sorry, I was talking about two different meanings of the same word. 1e does not have subclasses that operate as internal variation on a chassis, as 5e does. It has child classes of a parent class, but that parent class does not directly grant the child class any features except for attack and saving throw progression. You’re absolutely right that I was unclear. In my defense, it was late last night that I wrote the bulk of the article. 😉

I’m glad you continue to enjoy the column!

I am confused by something you wrote in the article, however…

In the first paragraph, you wrote: “In 1e, which has neither subclasses nor kits, …” This confuses me. Are you saying that 1e did not have subclasses? I’m certain that isn’t what you intended to convey because assuredly you know that 1e did, in fact, have subclasses. In fact, later in the article, you wrote: “Technically, samurai is a subclass of cavalier.”

So, I’m wondering what I missed, as to your meaning, in that opening paragraph.

Great analysis of these classes, of course, I have always enjoyed these History articles as they not only are entertaining and filled with nostalgia; they also give me food for thought regarding the more recent expressions of these classes and the archetypes they look to fill.