Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6126017" data-attributes="member: 7006">I would disagree that 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' are the same kind of crunch description as 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer'.&nbsp; I think former imply something very different than the latter.&nbsp; At least, they do to me.When I see 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer', I get a sense of the method that a Fighter class fights.&nbsp; It's how they do what they are.&nbsp; Whereas 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' say to me who they are.&nbsp; To me... 'Skirmisher' isn't a job.&nbsp; No one in the party would say &quot;I'm the skirmisher!&quot;.&nbsp; But they would say &quot;I'm the scout!&quot;.In my opinion, as I've said... I'd prefer to see the different fighting styles be the sub-classes of the Fighter.&nbsp; Weapon &amp; Shield.&nbsp; Two-Handed.&nbsp; Dual-wielder.&nbsp; Finesse.&nbsp; Improvised &amp; Unarmed.&nbsp; Ranged.&nbsp; Polearm.&nbsp; Tactical.&nbsp; Thrown.&nbsp; Jack-of-all-Trades.&nbsp; If we feel the need to add a descriptive term TO those styles for ease-of-use, they should imply nothing more than the fighting style if at all possible.&nbsp; The name should give you a pretty good idea of what exactly that fighting style does.&nbsp; Defender.&nbsp; Slayer.&nbsp; Tempest.&nbsp; Duelist.&nbsp; Brawler.&nbsp; Marksman.&nbsp; Pikeman.&nbsp; Tactician.&nbsp; Hurler.&nbsp; Weaponmaster.&nbsp; (Or whatever.)But the last thing I really want is to see just a list of jobs that Fighters do, because what is really gained from that over just using the name of the fighting style?&nbsp; That's essentially my point.&nbsp; When the name of a weapon class or a fighting style can work so well without pigeonholing a character into a thematic identity... why wouldn't you just use it?&nbsp; What is gained by going the other way?&nbsp; Knight.&nbsp; Gladiator.&nbsp; Samurai.&nbsp; Scout.&nbsp; Outlaw.&nbsp; Pirate.&nbsp; Myrmidon.&nbsp; Warlord.&nbsp; Mercenary.&nbsp; Hoplite.&nbsp; Legionnaire.&nbsp; Do these tell me anything specific about how I fight?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; As a Knight I can fight all kinds of different ways.&nbsp; So all it's doing by using the term 'Knight' is implying my background or current living situation... and we already have other character design functions to accomplish that.&nbsp; I don't need my sub-class to do it too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6126017, member: 7006"] I would disagree that 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' are the same kind of crunch description as 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer'. I think former imply something [I]very[/I] different than the latter. At least, they do to me. When I see 'Defender', 'Skirmisher' and 'Slayer', I get a sense of the [I]method[/I] that a Fighter class fights. It's how they do what they are. Whereas 'Samurai', 'Gladiator' and 'Scout' say to me [I]who[/I] they are. To me... 'Skirmisher' isn't a job. No one in the party would say "I'm the skirmisher!". But they would say "I'm the scout!". In my opinion, as I've said... I'd prefer to see the different [I]fighting styles[/I] be the sub-classes of the Fighter. Weapon & Shield. Two-Handed. Dual-wielder. Finesse. Improvised & Unarmed. Ranged. Polearm. Tactical. Thrown. Jack-of-all-Trades. If we feel the need to add a descriptive term TO those styles for ease-of-use, they should imply nothing more than the fighting style if at all possible. The name should give you a pretty good idea of what exactly that fighting style does. Defender. Slayer. Tempest. Duelist. Brawler. Marksman. Pikeman. Tactician. Hurler. Weaponmaster. (Or whatever.) But the last thing I really want is to see just a list of jobs that Fighters do, because what is really gained from that over just using the name of the fighting style? That's essentially my point. When the name of a weapon class or a fighting style can work so well without pigeonholing a character into a thematic identity... why wouldn't you just use it? What is gained by going the other way? Knight. Gladiator. Samurai. Scout. Outlaw. Pirate. Myrmidon. Warlord. Mercenary. Hoplite. Legionnaire. Do these tell me anything specific about how I fight? Nope. As a Knight I can fight all kinds of different ways. So all it's doing by using the term 'Knight' is implying my background or current living situation... and we already have other character design functions to accomplish that. I don't need my sub-class to do it too. [/QUOTE]

Verification