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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6956759" data-attributes="member: 7006">Sure.  But whether you call them 'Battlemaster kits' or 'Subclasses' doesn't really matter, because they are accomplishing the same thing, which I think we are both high on.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I am a firm believer that the Battlemaster is not in fact a "subclass", but is in fact what the Fighter class was supposed to be.  The same way that Clerics and Wizards have "spells" as their main defining and mechanical function... I think "maneuvers" are supposed and meant to be that for Fighters.  Which is why the Battlemaster doesn't have any fluff attached to it... the fluff is supposed to come out of deciding what type of Fighter you are, and then which maneuvers are selected and used to best exemplify it.  The same way you are an Illusionist by selecting a whole crapload of illusion spells, and then the School that gives you some additional illusion features on top of it. The only problem is... in an effort to not make things "complicated" for certain types of Fighter fans, they created the "simple" Champion, which basically entirely removed what were meant to be the mechanical underpinnings of the class.  Basically it'd be the equivalent of them making "simple" Clerics and Wizards by taking away their spells altogether and instead giving them a couple unchanging "magical" features.  The Champion basically breaks the mold they were trying to set, and now people just don't think of the Battlemaster the way its supposed to be.  Which is The Fighter.As a result, we have people here asking for "Defender-like" subclasses.  Or "Dual-Wielding" subclasses, or "Kensai (Sword saint) subclasses.  All of these these things which should and could be designed and made through the Combat Maneuver and Superiority Dice system.  Someone said they wanted a Fighter subclass that uses CHA?  We already have that first step with the Rally maneuver.  The Defender subclass?  We already have the Goading Attack maneuver.  Both of those are good first steps towards giving us what we want... but we can't just stop there.Rather than creating specialized subclass outside of the Battlemaster chassis... we should be treating maneuvers like we do spells-- if there's something missing in spellcasting, they make new spells.  Likewise... if there are gaps in our Fighters' abilities and the types of Fighters we can make, create new maneuvers.Truth be told... I'd much prefer the Maneuver system to be built up to be somewhat on par with the Spellcasting system, such that you could give some classes "Minor Combat Superiority" as a subclass, the same way we give "Minor Spellcasting" to them.  So just like for the Fighter we take out the Maneuvers system and give them Minor Spellcasting to create the Eldritch Knight archetype... they should have the system robust enough that for (for instance) the Ranger and Paladin, they could create a conclave and an oath that takes out their spellcasting and replaces it with Minor Combat Superiority.  Rogues should be able to take Minor Combat Superiority with a subclass the same way they get Minor Spellcasting with the Arcane Trickster.  The systems should be interchangeable so that players can create the types of characters they want.Then once you add more maneuvers to the game (just like you keep adding more spells to the game)... you can begin creating true fluffy Fighter subclasses that have some pre-selected maneuvers that help define what it does, plus then a feature or two that is unique to that one specific one.  Like what we received in UAs previously with the Scout, Monster Hunter, and Cavalier.  Those are the subclasses we should be making (or "Battlemaster kits" as     [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] defined them just to avoid confusion).  And where we can then get our defender-like "Knight", or our dual-wielding "Tempest", or our unarmored "Gladiator", or our weapon-specific "Kensai", etc. etc. etc.This is what the Maneuvers system was built for.  Let's not forsake it to history as just a single subclass's special mechanic.  It's too flexible of a combat system to just give up on it like that.</blockquote>

Verification