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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6970853" data-attributes="member: 996">As limited as the BM manuevers are, I have to agree.  I think the idea of the 'advanced fighter' being an entirely separate class is an even better one, though.  Especially as they've prettymuch burned the maneuvers-as-central-mechanic bridge already.It's really Action Surge & Extra Attack, IMHO.  Without Extra Attack, Action Surge doesn't do much, and Second Wind becomes pretty trivial out of the lowest levels (and overly random then).Agreed on both counts.  There has always been an unspoken bias against the fighter in the community -  maybe it's because the fighter is a very physical archetype (the jock or bully of the fantasy genre) and the fanbase is notoriously nerdy, or maybe it's a reaction against the muscle-bound protagonists of Conan pastiche in the 70s & 80s?To compare that to the development of spell mechanics with caster classes, as you did above, though, it's rare that a spell gets added to a single sub-class, exclusively.  Spells might be added for a sub-class, specifically, but they'll be added to the class list - and often other class's lists, as well.  Since spells can be used to differentiate specific caster characters and paint different concepts, adding a few new spells can open things up.  By locking down new mechanics in a single sub-class, this cross-pollination effect and the creativity it allows is stopped cold, and you get a strangely inappropriate silo'ing of comparatively mundane abilities.  I disagree.  It's just another option.  Feats & MCing are optional, but some concepts - like the fighter/magic-user - are supported regardless (by a feat, and by MCing, and by a sub-class, so it's available unless the DM uses neither of the first two and bans the last).  Apparently they feel that a very lethal archer is comparable central to the D&D feel, and want to give every opportunity for it to be included.  For the DM who excluded feats to avoid complication and unintended synergies, the sharpshooter archetype might be OK - one who just doesn't want overpowered archers just won't add that archetype to his campaign.Nod.  The fighter chassis just doesn't leave a lot of design space for something like an extensive maneuver system, the BM is barely squeezed in as it is, expanding it must seem ill-advised.  Variations on the Champion (which the Knight could easily be) might have been a better way to go, with an entirely separate martial class for the more 'complex' options...(...let's see, what other martial class was in a prior-edition PH1?  Oh, yeah, the Warlord!)We could definitely use more attack-equivalent rather than Action-requiring combat options.</blockquote>

Verification