Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6673989" data-attributes="member: 20323">Hey, thanks for your comments, mate! I'll be giving your ranger another look over, and generally getting caught up on ENWorld, this week.I totally get your point, but I have a different philosophy of design: Sub-classes should provide identity, not just mechanics. Battlemaster and Champion tell us very little about the identity of your fighter. Whereas a College of Valor bard or an Enchanter wizard says a lot about that character's identity. Actually, Mike Mearls in the latest Tome Show mentions that he regrets being too mechanics-focused in the fighter sub-class design, and not focused more on creating identity. I agree with that sentiment.Another train of thought: Does a fighter with a Noble background (and maybe the Mounted Combat feat) totally cover a cavalier? Similarly, does a fighter with a Soldier background totally cover a grizzled veteran?My answer to this is emphatically "no" because:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The grizzled veteran archetype, like the cavalier archetype, has enough to it that there is plenty of design space to explore beyond a background (or feat). A cavalier is MORE than a fighter with the Noble background. Same is true for a grizzled veteran.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Not every player of a fighter with the Soldier background wants to end up as a grizzled veteran. Sure, that's one direction they could take their character. But maybe they picture more of a mythic "chosen one" hero? Or maybe a wandering weapon master duelist who tries to put his military service behind him?</li> </ul>It's actually a huge archetype when you look at video games and anime. Aesthetically, I like such things to stay at the periphery of my gaming, but I know there are lots of players that are fans. If they can get a monk based on the Last Airbender, they why not a fighter based on Monster Hunter (or insert a pop culture reference that I'm failing at, haha).Does every fighter hunt a specific foe with single-minded focus? Does every fighter rely on terrifying their foes and hang trophies of fallen foes from their shield or saddle bags? Does every fighter have a unique magic weapon bonded to them to aid their hunt? My answer was "no", making the Slayer a viable archetype (even if the name is not the greatest and it's a bit of a smorgasbord concept).I imagine my version of the Warlord/Marshal wouldn't make a 3.5e/4e player totally happy, but it fits well thematically as a sub-class of fighter, there's limited healing ability, and overall I went for a more holistic approach encompassing many aspects of a "warlord" archetype.Yeah, I can see why it wasn't made a sub-class... any character could have "destined" in their backstory after all, and D&D translated Aragorn as the ranger class. But I think it fits fighter great and provides much-needed identity!</blockquote>

Verification