Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="1Mac" data-source="post: 5825633" data-attributes="member: 48998">Here's the problem I'm having with the idea of combat classes as fighter archetypes. Let's stick with 3e, where the Fighter basically got all proficiencies and lots of feats. You could of course design all kinds of archetypes with this as your base and still call it a Fighter, but by the time you are through, you are more than halfway to an existing class. Swap out a bunch of feats for rage, DR, and mobility, and you've pretty much got the Barbarian class. Trade feats and proficiencies for skills, survival abilities, and maneuverability, and it looks like the Ranger class. Swap for leadership or challenge abilities and you're halfway to the Marshal or Knight classes.Contrary to the OP, I don't see the problem with the Fighter coming from some sort of niche-raiding. It's that it's too bland a core to build an interesting archetype on top of without changing the basic mechanics of the class. You could roll the barbarian, knight, monk, marshal, and ranger into one class, but you would have find an interesting enough base mechanic to build the different concepts off of (something with stances, maybe?). Otherwise, by the time you're done with the archetype, you've changed the base class so much that you might as well call it a new class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="1Mac, post: 5825633, member: 48998"] Here's the problem I'm having with the idea of combat classes as fighter archetypes. Let's stick with 3e, where the Fighter basically got all proficiencies and lots of feats. You could of course design all kinds of archetypes with this as your base and still call it a Fighter, but by the time you are through, you are more than halfway to an existing class. Swap out a bunch of feats for rage, DR, and mobility, and you've pretty much got the Barbarian class. Trade feats and proficiencies for skills, survival abilities, and maneuverability, and it looks like the Ranger class. Swap for leadership or challenge abilities and you're halfway to the Marshal or Knight classes. Contrary to the OP, I don't see the problem with the Fighter coming from some sort of niche-raiding. It's that it's too bland a core to build an interesting archetype on top of without changing the basic mechanics of the class. You could roll the barbarian, knight, monk, marshal, and ranger into one class, but you would have find an interesting enough base mechanic to build the different concepts off of (something with stances, maybe?). Otherwise, by the time you're done with the archetype, you've changed the base class so much that you might as well call it a new class. [/QUOTE]

Verification