Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6762634" data-attributes="member: 2067">Yeah, I agree that 4e could've gone farther and I think that the reaction against 4e's &quot;do one thing&quot; fighter is part of why we have a fighter in 5e that doesn't have a strong independent flavor. To a certain degree, I think rogue is in the same camp - kind of Generic Town (though here the subclasses do some significant heavy lifting and convey a lot of flavor, so it gets a bit better). If the Warlord and the Slayer were better anchored into fiction (ESPECIALLY the Slayer), and the &quot;Fighter&quot; given a different name in 4e's initial release (Knight?), we might have seen a less narratively empty warrior class (or classes) out of 5e.I think as you go narrow you still have to be conscious of how big a class is (especially in 5e) and if it's really something that needs a whole class to support it, and really what the difference in the fiction and the world really is. Some of the failed classes of 4e are failed archetypes - there is little demand for a &quot;ranger whose arrows turn into bees&quot; or &quot;a cleric, but with runes,&quot; perhaps. And when you lean into &quot;your class is you in the world,&quot; you can't half-cheek it (the 4e fighter might've been a little hamstrung by 4e's general &quot;fluff is meaningless&quot; design choices here). But those are all, I think, the right problems to be facing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6762634, member: 2067"] Yeah, I agree that 4e could've gone farther and I think that the reaction against 4e's "do one thing" fighter is part of why we have a fighter in 5e that doesn't have a strong independent flavor. To a certain degree, I think rogue is in the same camp - kind of Generic Town (though here the subclasses do some significant heavy lifting and convey a lot of flavor, so it gets a bit better). If the Warlord and the Slayer were better anchored into fiction (ESPECIALLY the Slayer), and the "Fighter" given a different name in 4e's initial release (Knight?), we might have seen a less narratively empty warrior class (or classes) out of 5e. I think as you go narrow you still have to be conscious of how big a class is (especially in 5e) and if it's really something that needs a whole class to support it, and really what the difference in the fiction and the world really is. Some of the failed classes of 4e are [I]failed archetypes[/I] - there is little demand for a "ranger whose arrows turn into bees" or "a cleric, but with runes," perhaps. And when you lean into "your class is you in the world," you can't half-cheek it (the 4e fighter might've been a little hamstrung by 4e's general "fluff is meaningless" design choices here). But those are all, I think, the right problems to be facing. [/QUOTE]

Verification