Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7188549" data-attributes="member: 20323">My original list had some similarities to yours...Borderlands Guard like your commando, think the Knight's Watch from A Song of Ice and Fire, a non-spellcasting ranger type, but instead of exploring the horizion, the borderlands guard defends the hearth/heart of civilizationCavalier because "knight" is a loaded concept tied to aristocracy (which is also already expressed in Backgrounds), I like drawing upon the cavalier from past editions to present a graceful mounted warrior par excellenceDestined Hero drawing upon a common trope in young adult fiction, this is for the Taran the Wanderers, Richard Cyphers, and similar types "chosen by destiny", probably a good place to put "action hero" stuffMonster Slayer also a common trope, drawing from Witcher stories, Castlevania, and other similar monster hunter typesSwashbuckler I see this as a more clearly defined archetype than "tactician", one equally at home in the fighter and the rogue, so perhaps there is a name that fits better for warrior-types since "Swashbuckler" appeared in Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide already IIRCVeteran the generic tough hero, with features that mirror the Battle Master's Know Thy Enemy but applied to military troops/fortifications, likely a good place to include some older edition stuff.Warlord in addition to drawing on the 3e/4e versions, this is a great place to bring back the "Baron" concept from older editions for a proper warlord<s>Weapons Master</s>However, the more I think about it, the more I feel that "Weapon Master" should NOT be a subclass. Why? Because that is part of the definition of a fighter already. A master of martial combat, skilled in a variety of weapons and armor. (PHB p.45)A "Veteran" makes a better generic option, especially since it was a level title for starting fighters in previous editions, and seems to match the power level of 1st level fighters being more potent than the average guard or tribal warrior.But, in principle, I agree that the fighter – like the other Core Four (wizard, cleric, rogue, fighter) – should have an abundance of subclasses. Back in the day, Gary Gygax tried to enforce a world-building conceit that fighter & rogues (and to a lesser extent wizards & clerics) were more numerous than more specialized classes. While modern design has shifted, I think those Core Four are the broadest umbrellas for a whole host of concepts, so it actually makes sense to incorporate Gygax's vision, just using the carrot instead of the stick. You want a lot of choices? Sure! The fighter has 8 subclasses you can choose from! Oh, you want to play a barbarian? No problem, but you'll only have these 2-3 to choose from. That naturally encourages a predominance of the Core Four, while also playing to the breadth of stories covered by each of those four classes.Even going back to the PHB description of a fighter might provide ideas...Furthermore: All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face. (PHB 70)</blockquote>

Verification