Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
D&D Next Q&A 9 August
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5987719" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>This. I suspect that the confusion is caused by some short-hand being used in the playtest, with unexplained assumptions. Namely, that in some of the places where they are saying "fighter" here they should really be saying "martial" or "non-caster" or something like that. (And I suspect that they are avoid such language in part to keep people from gettting up in arms over whatever ideas it provokes--e.g. "martial" as a concept being confused with exactly the "4E martial power source."</p><p> </p><p>As it happens, in the playtest, the fighter is the only "martial" class, though not the only non-caster. So in this case, I think they intend for CS to be the martial branch that substitutes for spells or rogue-ish trickery and skills.</p><p> </p><p>Then when they get around to doing a hybrid martial/caster class such as the paladin, it becomes rather obvious how the split should break. To the extent that the paladin gets martial ability, it cuts into his spells. Up one, drop the other. (And then add on whatever else is needed to make the guy a "paladin"--a good working hybrid with its own flavor, as opposed to a fighter/cleric.) </p><p> </p><p>That is, in the fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard playground, once the fighter has reasonable and pertinent toys to play with, same as those other three, then it becomes a lot easier to design the hybrids. You could make a case that a great deal of the ranger, paladin, barbarian, etc. issues in various editions have sprung from problems in the fighter itself. (Certainly not all, bu some.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5987719, member: 54877"] This. I suspect that the confusion is caused by some short-hand being used in the playtest, with unexplained assumptions. Namely, that in some of the places where they are saying "fighter" here they should really be saying "martial" or "non-caster" or something like that. (And I suspect that they are avoid such language in part to keep people from gettting up in arms over whatever ideas it provokes--e.g. "martial" as a concept being confused with exactly the "4E martial power source." As it happens, in the playtest, the fighter is the only "martial" class, though not the only non-caster. So in this case, I think they intend for CS to be the martial branch that substitutes for spells or rogue-ish trickery and skills. Then when they get around to doing a hybrid martial/caster class such as the paladin, it becomes rather obvious how the split should break. To the extent that the paladin gets martial ability, it cuts into his spells. Up one, drop the other. (And then add on whatever else is needed to make the guy a "paladin"--a good working hybrid with its own flavor, as opposed to a fighter/cleric.) That is, in the fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard playground, once the fighter has reasonable and pertinent toys to play with, same as those other three, then it becomes a lot easier to design the hybrids. You could make a case that a great deal of the ranger, paladin, barbarian, etc. issues in various editions have sprung from problems in the fighter itself. (Certainly not all, bu some.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
D&D Next Q&A 9 August
Top