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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6125335" data-attributes="member: 7006">The big issue I think WotC is running into is that the two buckets that Clerics and Wizards have to pull from to create their "subclasses" (the Deity and the Tradition) are different than the buckets Fighters and Rogue are currently pulling from.  The sub-classes of the Cleric are not "types" of Cleric.  We're not seeing the "Priest", or "Templar" or "Archivist" or "Mystic" or "Evangelist" etc.  Those types of sub-classes are hypothesizing the different ways Clerics are seen in the world... the "fluffy", "story-based" identities a Cleric might have.  Instead... we have this completely separate game-world concept (the Gods of the World), and the sub-classes of Cleric are all based upon how they relate to that game-world concept.  So if you worship the Reaper deity for example... you can be a Priest Reaper, a Templar Reaper, an Archivist Reaper etc.  Your sub-class is not telling you how your PC behaves in the game world... but rather what is important to him as he behaves in the game world.The sub-classes of the Wizard are also not "types" of Wizard.  We're not yet seeing the "Warlock" or "Sorcerer" or "Thaumaturge" or "Wild Mage" or "Binder" or "Witch Doctor" etc.  Those types of sub-classes are hypothesizing the different ways Wizards are seen in the world... the "fluffy", "story-based" identities a Wizard might have.  Instead... we have this completely separate game-world concept (the schools of magic), and the sub-classes of Wizard (thus far) are all based upon how they relate to that game-world concept.  So if you specialized or were focused on Necromancy for example... you can be a Sorcerer Necromancer, a Wild Mage Necromancer, a Witch Doctor Necromancer etc.  Your sub-class is not telling you how your PC uses magic in the game world... but rather what is important to him as he uses magic in the game world.But this is not the case for the Fighter, and slightly less than the Rogue.  Right now, the Fighter sub-classes are entirely "fluffy" and "story-based".  You are a Samurai.  You are a Gladiator.  You are a Scout.  You're not using a particular facet of the game-world to facilitate being a samurai, gladiator or scout... you ARE those things.  Which, to me, is where the issue with this is coming up.Mike made it clear that archer and two-weapon fighter are currently remaining in the realm of feats.  Presumably this is because (as he states) he wants use to be able to make archer Rangers or two-weapon Barbarians.  Which I can kind of understand... but I don't think makes for a very strong case.  For my money... while I think anyone can use archery... only Fighters should be Archers.  While anyone can fight wielding two weapons... only Fighters should be Two-Weapon Fighters.  While anyone can defend themselves with a shield... only Fighters should be Defenders.  Reason being... because other classes already have other abilities and stuff that makes them those classes.  They don't need to be Archers or Defenders ON TOP of it.THOSE are the game-world concepts that should be in the bucket that the Fighter draws his sub-classes from.  The different schools of fighting and weaponry.  Being an Archer should get you something as a Fighter when specializing in loaded ranged weapons, the same way being an Evoker gets you something as a Wizard when specializing in evocation spells.   Being a Duelist should get you something as a Fighter when specializing in light armor and a one-handed finesse weapon, the same way being an Pyromancer gets you something as a Wizard when specializing in fire-based spells.But when you push all these different weapon style concepts over into the Feats bucket and give every other class the same opportunity to take these concepts... you have no choice but to use Fluff to distinguish different types of Fighters.  Which I think is too limiting, and ends up treading too much upon what Backgrounds are meant to achieve.  Why is Samurai a type of Fighter and not a Background?  Seems to me it should be.  Why is Gladiator a type of Fighter and not a Background?  And if you need further proof... the Knight already *is* a Background, so why should it now be pigeonholed into just something a Fighter is?Look... I get it.  Mike is desperate to make the idea of Feats work.  But let's just face facts... many of the "fighting style" feat packages should really be just Fighter options in order to MAKE FIGHTERS DISTINCT FROM OTHER CLASSES.  Paladins get a whole bunch of abilities from spellcasting and their oath... they don't need fighting styles TOO.  They absolutely can and should be able to wield a sword and shield... but they don't need special abilities when using them... not when they have their spells and their oath.Leave the special abilities you get for wielding a sword and shield to the one class WHO NEEDS that sort of distinguishing game-world concept.  The Fighter.Sword 'n Board Style - The DefenderOne handed finese Style - The DuelistDual-wield Style - The TempestHeavy weapon Style - The SlayerLoaded ranged weapon Style - The MarksmanThrown weapon Style - The HurlerImprovised and unarmed Style - The BrawlerThose are some sub-classes I can get behind for the Fighter.And as for the Rogue?  That's really a whole different ball of wax.</blockquote>

Verification