Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8253927" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I agree, thus my work on an Archer and my thoughts toward splitting off the heavily armored noble warrior from the less armored more down to earth warrior.Yeah, that makes sense to me. The Fighter being so broad means that every time there is a new concept that happens to use weapons people will assume it should be a figther, but the fighter just doesn't have room for actually satisfying changes to gameplay from the subclass. With a few exceptions like Echo Knight, fighter archetypes mostly play like a fighter. A BM is just a Fighter with a few tricks every so often. Honestly, I think instead of extra feats, the Fighter should give the player a choice of Battlemaster and Champion at level 1, and you either get scaling superiority dice or crit benefits, completely alongside and separate from your Archetype. If you have to move some of the other low level stuff around a bit, fine, make the fighter table look like the monk's. But put that choice between manuever and simplistic efficacy be separate from the subclass choice, and instead be baked into the base class. Then you can do interesting things like give the BM legendary actions instead of extra extra attacks, while leaving the EEA to the Champions, and you can give both of them more oomph. Hell, while the fighter gets a lot at level 1 and 2, and Action Surge is really good, I think it still gets less than a Cleric, for instance. There's room to give a choice between a "extra dice when you crit" mechanic and a couple superiority dice and a couple manuevers, and scale both with level like you're a "full caster" of hitting things.I agree with pretty much all of this, which is why I'd describe DnD as capable of being generic, but not of being universal (if such a thing is ever possible). I'll get into how 5e specifically is more generic than any other version of DnD ever made, and potentially capable of doing pretty much any style of game other than very rules light gaming, later.Fair enough, and apology accepted.To me, just for clarity, the specific in world items (races, monsters, spells, etc) of dnd needn't all be present to be dnd, and indeed usually aren't all present. Instead, I need it to be a fantasy adventure using the action resolution of dnd, and for the player options to be chosen from what dnd offers. So, some third party games based on 5e are still dnd, to me, while others aren't, depending on how far afield they go. Obviously where the line is will vary.Agreed. I suppose I just disagree on how specific those quintessential elements are, and how much most people would think of them when you say something like "DnD in Space". Things like dragons? Yeah, any DnD made for a general audience will have a take on dragons, either using the MM dragons, subverting them, or making their absence notable and a thing to investigate or a thing that a lore keeping character would know about. Still, part of me wishes Dark Sun had used dragons in place of Dune's sand worms.The ships of Theseus line colored my reception of the Big Mac analogy, because that concept is generally used to deny that something is the thing that someone else is saying it is.I'm sorry I caused you to avoid the forum. That certainly wasn't my intention. I appreciate this exchange, and hope that we can just chat about using classes in the narrative of the world, now.</blockquote>

Verification