Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6099290" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That isn't true at all.  The PC build resources were there to build a duelist/swashbuckler guy off the Fighter chassis in AD&D 2e with the Combat and Tactics Book.  They had a 1-handed fighting style weapon proficiency, they had Tumbling and increased Reactions, and they had NWPs that rounded you out to the end of flamboyant swashbuckler/duelist.  They also had the 2-weapon style for rapier and main gauche if you wanted to go that route.  You could easily build one.  The same thing clearly applies with 3.x and the various expertise/dodge/mobility/spring attack/weapon finesse etc.  You could build one in both of those editions and they were fully supported through the Fighter.  However, just like in 5e, they weren't as mechanically potent as the other available builds.  Next is accommodating nothing new here.I've read all of those words.  I just happen to disagree with them completely and don't find that you're applying the logic universally.  At all.  Every single one of those classes (moreso than the Warlord) works off of the basic Fighter chassis and they all primarily combatants with a few bells and whistles.  Out of all of them, the Paladin is the most thematically focused/robust.  Nonetheless, if you're forced to, you could still shoehorn him with the same system.  You could do so if you didn't care about diluting his thematic depth and the potency/breadth of his resources (same applies to the Warlord...except again, he isn't fundamentally working off of the Fighter chassis). Rangers can easily be created off of the Fighter chassis with a Woodsman (Athletics, Perception, Nature, Stealth and some fluffy wilderness ability) Background and feats that support Animal Friendship, Favored Enemy/Terrain, Combat Style.  Barbarian can easily be created off of the Fighter chassis with a Wildman/Hordelands (Athletics, Intimidate, Nature, Endurance  and some fluffy tribal ability) Background and feats that support Rage, Grit/DR, Speed with light/no armor. Paladin can easily be created off of the Fighter chassis with the Priest (4 skills and fluff ability as per playtest) Background and feats that support Holy Smite, Lay on Hands, Holy Steed.If you're good with that, then you can sell me on the Warlord being easily created off of the Fighter chassis with a Field Marshal (Athletics, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate and some fluffy "chain of command" ability) and feats that support ally bonuses to Insight/Perception/Initiative, improve allies action economy and damage/pull them out of danger, and invigorate/heal them with inspiration, etc.I agree it isn't the same.  Its a generic chassis that lets you build all manner of primarily Martial "Fighting guys" off of them with extra source stuff through other PC build resources.  If you're ok with diluting one classes thematic potency and reducing the potency/breadth of his tactically deployable resources, then there is no reason to not treat all "Fighting guys" the same, assuming that you can "functionally" recreate them.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  I foresaw that incredulity.  We cross posted as I broke those out about 3 minutes before you posted your response.  See <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?335024-D-amp-D-podcast!&p=6099228&viewfull=1#post6099228" target="_blank">the post directly above your response.</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?335024-D-amp-D-podcast!&p=6099228&viewfull=1#post6099228" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?335024-D-amp-D-podcast!&p=6099228&viewfull=1#post6099228" target="_blank"></a>I agree that the "thematic content" that rounds out the robustness of  classes can be served in ways other than class (see above for Ranger,  Barbarian, Warlord).  It just doesn't do it perfectly well if it dilutes  that content and is less robust than other renderings of those classes  deployable resources...which is the case...which is why each of those  need a class.  Not merely legacy reasons.  If their Feat system was  robust enough (carried the heft of Class Features), then it could.  But  it doesn't.I hope you understand that I don't disagree that "a lot of us - you - don't like combat-as-sport".  That was actually my point.  They are deferring to you.  As such, through that deference, they are inhibiting the actualization of the orthogonal playstyle (combat-as-sport)...while somehow maintaining the untenable "big tent" position.  And then ultimately stating that the Warlord/Marshal doesn't make the cut...while making an absurd offhand quip about Warlord healing inspiring a hand back on (which would basically be edition warring on this board)...while somehow missing the fact that they've constructed a HD system that lets you grow that same hand back overnight.  I mean what an extraordinary gaffe.  You're not disputing my point here.  You're agreeing with it.  Emphatically.  They are deferring to your style of play and the genre conceit of NO SCREAM HEALING OK.  Willfully (with some mockery, incoherent mockery at that, in the latest podcast to boot).  And crowding out the playstyle of others.  While somehow maintaining the "big tent" marketing mission statement.  Yup.</blockquote>

Verification