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: 7363742" data-attributes="member: 996">Oh, I could see it, theoretically.  For instance, a faux-Warlord fighter sub-class that could sacrifice it's Extra Attacks to do all sorts of maneuvers, dynamically.  Extra Attack represents a pretty big chunk of power.  It's just unprecedented, ATM, and it's not like Mearls is suggesting anything of the kind in his podcast.And, yeah, it'd be tantamount to creating a new class.  Heck, the BM's maneuvers are barely contained in the existing fighter, in either sense.  They're both a bit much in terms of column-inches & complexity for 'just a sub-class' and constitue an entire, unique sub-system.  The mechanical distinction between a Wizard and Sorcerer (ie, the metamagic sub-system) is arguably less profound than between a Champion and a Battlemaster (maneuver sub-system).  That maneuver sub-system is then left with no room to grow or be adapted to other things.  A whole class that got most of it's capability from a larger list of level-gated BM-style maneuvers, for instance, could have sub-classes that cover a variety of Warlords, and other martial archetypes like the Bo9S Warblade and the Weaponmaster and 3.x fighter-based builds you just can't do yet, even with feats - heck, even the mythical 'martial controller.'  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  And, frankly, as neat as that may sound, I think they could do better.</blockquote>

Verification