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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 7677488" data-attributes="member: 63508">Yeah. He mentioned fighter subclasses like knight, gladiator, brawler, berserker. These used to be subclasses in the playtest. I missed them. He's right too, the only subclasses without a real flavor are the champion and battlemaster. They are "mechanics as character" mostly.Now the playtest fighter subclasses were wonky. However their names invoked flavor and their mechanics enforced it. Those would be cool as UA and bonus subclasses.A knight who excels at using the better armor, arms, and education of a noble warrior.A gladiator who has better usage of "exotic" weapons like nets and tridents, terrify foes, and can fight well using any equipment they find.A brawler who can fight well unarmed and unarmored but is still good with any weapon and can mix it up a bit.He's kinda all other with this one. Mearls pretty much says the "What is the Ranger's thing" thread is discussing. The ranger is a mix of Fighter/Rogue/Druid. In the pre-3e days, you couldn't do this (without being certain races and being lucky as all heck with stat rolls). When 3e and now 5e being looser on snagging stuff, being an efficiently mutliclass isn't unique and then you contend with the various thoughts by fans of what the ranger is It sounds like they might make a whole new variant ranger (maybe with a new name) with a new exclusive mechanic. Then give the fighter a "ranger-like" subclass for those who want a nonmagical ranger.</blockquote>

Verification