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="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6674078" data-attributes="member: 92511">I suppose my object to both the grizzled veteran and slayer subtypes isn't so much about the idea/concept, and its certainly not about mechanics.I absolutely, 100% agree that subclasses need to offer a degree of identity...otherwise they really are just a mechanics bundle, and I am VERY against that sort of D&D. That "degree" though, must [or "should", imho] still allow for multiple character types within it. My problem, I suppose, is not that the Veteran and Slayer strike me as too "general" a concept at large, and that might be the incorrect angle for what I'm trying convey. My point is the identity being presented is too specific in that it is really the kind of things are [again, "shouble be", imho] role playing choices, not dictated by class/subclass/mechanics.I should be able to do a fighter or a ranger or, how about a cleric [a la Van Helsing], that is a single-minded focus on hunting down fighting monsters/a particular monster? I should be able to make a wizard or rogue who fought in the last great war and is, as a result, a "grizzled veteran."I saw the comment on the Mearls thread and I agree, in terms of evocative, the Fighter subclass names are the least evocative. But they do what needs doing. The more to specify flavor, and it needs specifying to justify the subclass at all, but when you begin to step beyond the flavor into things like motivations and/or default mental states, then you're removing player agency and begin eroding the things about the role-playing game that are the purview of role-playing...and that's a step too far [for me].  I can be a fighter with a soldier background who's perfectly well adjusted and still the would be hero. Or I could be the Fighter, Champion, Battlemaster (or Eldritch Knight, I suppose) who is a grizzled veteran from their battle/wartime experiences. I could have a CHampion or Battlemaster or Eldritch Knight (or any other class, for that matter) that has a singular purpose to hunting down some hated monster or monster type.That's an RP choice for the player to make about their character. A subclass shouldn't really be dictating THAT part of the character...again, imho. Have an "identity" for sure, but many character types/concepts have to be possible/able to exist within that identity, not dictate one.By contrast, the Cavalier has the identity and flavor (the mounted warrior, the warrior-but-not-paladin knight) but doesn't dictate beyond flavor to intrude on "identity"...if that distinction makes sense. The Warlord as well. The Guardian/Destined hero, you may be correct, might be better served as a feat or background, itself. As that, also, is the kind of thing that could/should be available to a character of any class (though, admittedly, in myth and literature, they are nearly always warrior types).</blockquote>

Verification