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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8050573" data-attributes="member: 20323">[USER=6848185]@CubicsRube[/USER] You might appreciate my perspective and design philosophy of <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-warrior.535057/" target="_blank">The Warrior</a> from a few years ago. I was arguing against "The Fighter Fights" / Traditionalist views of the fighter class, and attempting to share a framework for what a redesign could look like. To summarize the gist of it:Your comment about wanting the fighter to be the class with that "common touch" speaks to the void in the fighter's identity. That same void is what I was attempting to fill in my effort on the Warrior redesign.If you compare the OD&D, AD&D, and BD&D fighters to the 3e, 4e, and 5e fighter, the most glaring difference is the absence of Lordship (Baron-hood) in more modern editions.The other defining features were being skilled with a diversity of weapons & being tough. In some – but not all – of the editions, the fighter was also the best at armed combat.However, that left a void in the fighter's identity.3e embraced that void as being a design mandate, making the fighter a flavorless chassis that you applied your own flavor to. 4e attempted to emphasize the fighter as being a defender. And 5e is sort of in between.Mike Mearls mentioned that one of his regrets with 5e was being so fixated on mechanically differentiating the "simple fighter" from the "complex fighter" that the subclasses becoming a vehicle for mechanical differentiation, rather than thematic/story differentiation. He suggested that subclass would be the best vehicle for introducing flavor/identity to the fighter.</blockquote>

Verification