Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6099229" data-attributes="member: 2067">The existence of a duelist build for the Fighter already invalidates that. No D&amp;D fighter (even in 4e!) was the Errol Flynn type, and clearly the NEXT fighter is being built to accommodate that type as well. Yes, they want to serve the legacy of a simple fighter. No, that's not the limit of what they want to do with the thing -- just a starting point.That's not entirely true, and I've already spent a LOT of words on how this difference divides, but it hinges on the fact that rangers, paladins, and barbarians define themselves by things other than fighting, while a Warlord does not.The Fighter isn't being designed to be an UR-class for every weapon-wielding martial combatant, it's being designed to fill the role of &quot;Fantasy Warrior Combat Guy.&quot; Which isn't the same as &quot;Noble chivalric knight guy,&quot; and isn't the same as &quot;Untamed savage brute guy&quot; and isn't the same as &quot;Woodwise independent hunting guy.&quot;The &quot;genre implications&quot; and &quot;thematic content&quot; (which are really ambiguous and open-ended phrases) can be served in ways other than a class. Simply because you might achieve those genres and themes with something like a rule for inspirational healing, a specialty focused on command, and a character sheet that says &quot;FIGHTER&quot; on it instead of &quot;WARLORD&quot; doesn't mean the legacy is abandoned. It DOES mean that someone looking to play a master of combat, who picks up the Fighter class, might also be a tactical master, without having to open up a whole new class for that. Hi, I'm a 5e Fighter who has taken the &quot;commander&quot; fighting style, and one of the maneuvers allows me to grant my allies a free attack, and another one lets them get a free movement, and all I have to do is stand here.Why is that an affront to what should happen?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6099229, member: 2067"] The existence of a duelist build for the Fighter already invalidates that. No D&D fighter (even in 4e!) was the Errol Flynn type, and clearly the NEXT fighter is being built to accommodate that type as well. Yes, they want to serve the legacy of a simple fighter. No, that's not the limit of what they want to do with the thing -- just a starting point. That's not entirely true, and I've already spent a LOT of words on how this difference divides, but it hinges on the fact that rangers, paladins, and barbarians define themselves by things other than fighting, while a Warlord does not. The Fighter isn't being designed to be an UR-class for every weapon-wielding martial combatant, it's being designed to fill the role of "Fantasy Warrior Combat Guy." Which isn't the same as "Noble chivalric knight guy," and isn't the same as "Untamed savage brute guy" and isn't the same as "Woodwise independent hunting guy." The "genre implications" and "thematic content" (which are [I]really[/I] ambiguous and open-ended phrases) can be served in ways other than a class. Simply because you might achieve those genres and themes with something like a rule for inspirational healing, a specialty focused on command, and a character sheet that says "FIGHTER" on it instead of "WARLORD" doesn't mean the legacy is abandoned. It DOES mean that someone looking to play a master of combat, who picks up the Fighter class, might also be a tactical master, without having to open up a whole new class for that. Hi, I'm a 5e Fighter who has taken the "commander" fighting style, and one of the maneuvers allows me to grant my allies a free attack, and another one lets them get a free movement, and all I have to do is stand here. Why is that an affront to what should happen? [/QUOTE]

Verification