Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Year Unearthed Arcana Brings Back Those Old 2E Kits
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7690288" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Here's the thing... I think these kit re-dos are their attempt to actually GET at "Concrete Meaning". And they're using the Battlemaster because it is what I think <em>they</em> think is the "real" Fighter class. The class they would point to as being the baseline Fighter, because that's the one that has their mechanical martial creation-- the Superiority die. The Champion exists because they felt the need to have a "simple" Fighter, but it's not the one they look as being equivalent to the Cleric or the Wizard. I think the Battlemaster is what their default Fighter class <em>would</em> be if they didn't provide the simple one too.</p><p></p><p>So if we say for the sake of argument that Battlemaster = Fighter in their eyes... we now look to the <strong>subclasses</strong> of that "Fighter class" to get at the specialties that include all the story and fluff. This is where we'd find the Samurai. The Gladiator. The Scout. The Cavalier. All the fluffy sub-classes the Fighter gets that the Cleric gets with their god domains and the Wizard gets with their schools of magic.</p><p></p><p>Can you theoretically make Cavaliers, Scouts, Gladiators, Samurai, Myrmidons, and the like just by using the Battlemaster as-is? Sure. But why aren't people doing that? In the thread you mentioned, it was brought up that you could make a book of "Fluffy Fighters" just by making specific builds of the Battlemaster and layer on some story as to why you selected this maneuver or that maneuver. But it didn't seem to gain much traction. I would suspect though that by doing <em>this</em>... not only selecting this maneuver and that maneuver but also getting EXTRA bits you can't ordinarily get from your baseline Battlemaster... is the way to inspire people to play them, as well as make a reason for WotC to possibly publish them in a book. Because there's extra mechanics for each sub-class, so you aren't just printing a book of "ideas", which would probably irritate people.</p><p></p><p>For my money... if "spells" are the baseline mechanic for all spellcasters and which can be distributed across almost every single class in the game in some form or fashion... then "superiority dice" can form the same function across several different martial classes too. I don't see why every martial classes needs to have their own individual martial mechanic without any overlap whatsoever (like we currently have in Rage, Superiority Dice, Inspiration Dice, Sneak Attack, Smite, Flurry of Blows and Hunter's Mark). More than one martial class could share a mechanic. Or at the very least... the one "sub"class that has it could share it amongst other sub-sbclasses.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7690288, member: 7006"] Here's the thing... I think these kit re-dos are their attempt to actually GET at "Concrete Meaning". And they're using the Battlemaster because it is what I think [i]they[/i] think is the "real" Fighter class. The class they would point to as being the baseline Fighter, because that's the one that has their mechanical martial creation-- the Superiority die. The Champion exists because they felt the need to have a "simple" Fighter, but it's not the one they look as being equivalent to the Cleric or the Wizard. I think the Battlemaster is what their default Fighter class [i]would[/i] be if they didn't provide the simple one too. So if we say for the sake of argument that Battlemaster = Fighter in their eyes... we now look to the [b]subclasses[/b] of that "Fighter class" to get at the specialties that include all the story and fluff. This is where we'd find the Samurai. The Gladiator. The Scout. The Cavalier. All the fluffy sub-classes the Fighter gets that the Cleric gets with their god domains and the Wizard gets with their schools of magic. Can you theoretically make Cavaliers, Scouts, Gladiators, Samurai, Myrmidons, and the like just by using the Battlemaster as-is? Sure. But why aren't people doing that? In the thread you mentioned, it was brought up that you could make a book of "Fluffy Fighters" just by making specific builds of the Battlemaster and layer on some story as to why you selected this maneuver or that maneuver. But it didn't seem to gain much traction. I would suspect though that by doing [i]this[/i]... not only selecting this maneuver and that maneuver but also getting EXTRA bits you can't ordinarily get from your baseline Battlemaster... is the way to inspire people to play them, as well as make a reason for WotC to possibly publish them in a book. Because there's extra mechanics for each sub-class, so you aren't just printing a book of "ideas", which would probably irritate people. For my money... if "spells" are the baseline mechanic for all spellcasters and which can be distributed across almost every single class in the game in some form or fashion... then "superiority dice" can form the same function across several different martial classes too. I don't see why every martial classes needs to have their own individual martial mechanic without any overlap whatsoever (like we currently have in Rage, Superiority Dice, Inspiration Dice, Sneak Attack, Smite, Flurry of Blows and Hunter's Mark). More than one martial class could share a mechanic. Or at the very least... the one "sub"class that has it could share it amongst other sub-sbclasses. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Year Unearthed Arcana Brings Back Those Old 2E Kits
Top