Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 7690322" data-attributes="member: 19265">Wouldn't it have been nice if the original fighter subclasses were actual (as in conceptual) archetypes? Then we could have avoided any time a cool concept for a fighter subclass is made someone simply saying - that could just be added to the BM. Yep, every concept can kinda be made with it and people are using this as a hold on other (actual) concepts. BM is not a concept; it is a collection of powers with a mechanic. That is okay, but some people want concepts for their subclasses, but any time one comes up it really irritates me that people just say, "why not just add this subclasses' features to the BM manuevers?"Some people don't want superiority dice and manuevers.Adding too many to the Battlemaster really depletes the idea of a subclass (especially one that is already so broad). What is a BM? What will it be if all maneuvers are just added to it. Takes us back to 4E's mass of powers that are siloed and not linked by theme.Anyway - this has all been stated before, but I am more than happy to see some fighter subclasses actually based upon concepts, even if that means using a tight group of maneuvers or ideas from the all-inclusive BM list.</blockquote>