No Hope for Scout and Monster Hunter Fighter and artificer wizard

[CapnZapp]

How much does official matter?

For the purposes of having a discussion on an official message board, please assume the answer is "everything", since otherwise there's no real point in discussing, if we can just agree to write our own personal fixes.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'm a fan of keeping subclasses from spiraling out of control. I want some wiggle room in them to fit MY vision of a character and not have to squeeze that vision into a narrow subclass.

Anyway, you can build an excellent scouting fighter using the existing subclasses, feats and MCing. How do I know? I've done it.

 

[CapnZapp]

They backed themselves into a corner when they made Superiority Dice to be the sole special thing about the Battlemaster. All fighters should have got Superiority Dice, and then they bothered making the Battlemaster the master of using Superority Dice.

In contrast, I think they backed themselves into a corner when they created one subclass with all the maneuvers, and worse, one where every maneuver has the same cost.

Had they included a "specialized Battlemaster" with a much more focused set of maneuvers, or at least one with "tiered" maneuvers (where low-level characters can only select from a limited set, and others become available only at high levels) there would still be design space for more subclasses associated with superiority dice.

As it is, superiority dice is essentially dead as a mechanism valuable in creating new subclasses.

The Battlemaster could theoretically be errataed to have restrictions that are meant nerf flexibility (but not necessarily power).

However, it seems clear no such redesign errata is forthcoming, so all you could hope for is a new set of superiority dice subclasses, say a trio, where each one steals one third of the Battlemaster's schtick and adds a little something unique to it.

Then you're faced with the choice: do you go for the generic Battlemaster, or the new trio of subclasses?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

They backed themselves into a corner when they made Superiority Dice to be the sole special thing about the Battlemaster. All fighters should have got Superiority Dice, and then they bothered making the Battlemaster the master of using Superority Dice.

That would have made it impossible to have the Champion as a class for the hypothetical player who only wants to roll dice without having to think.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

That would have made it impossible to have the Champion as a class for the hypothetical player who only wants to roll dice without having to think.

They could have had the Champion use Superiority Dice for 1 or 2 simple things like More Damage or Reduce Damage Taken.

 

[cbwjm]

I still think that classes that have a narrower focus using superiority dice is a good idea, I actually quite like the examples they created in past UA articles. Having things to spend the dice on outside of combat was a great idea.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That would have made it impossible to have the Champion as a class for the hypothetical player who only wants to roll dice without having to think.

I'm agnostic on the dice, but they could have made it so that the champion's player rolls the dice once after each long/short rest and gets it out of the way, maybe with something like setting the critical hit range or a bonus to second wind.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm a fan of keeping subclasses from spiraling out of control. I want some wiggle room in them to fit MY vision of a character and not have to squeeze that vision into a narrow subclass.

Anyway, you can build an excellent scouting fighter using the existing subclasses, feats and MCing. How do I know? I've done it.

This. And as a followup, one of the problems when you start making niche subclasses is that you start promoting the idea that you can't be one of those things if you're not also a class, especially when they're very generic names. Like, imagine if instead of Fighter, we called it "Soldier". It begs the question of "can you be a soldier without being a Solider class?" Or if we called the Paladin a Knight. What happens to everyone who wants to be a knight but doesn't play to play a Knight class?

Titles and professions as class names, when the class represents a very specific idea of that role, can end up being limiting, rather than empowering.

 

[Olive]

For the purposes of having a discussion on an official message board, please assume the answer is "everything", since otherwise there's no real point in discussing, if we can just agree to write our own personal fixes.

It's not an official message board!

I guess my point is that the rules exist and are out there. If you're happy with them, then it's great and you can continue. If it's not then I guess it could be disappointing. Otherwise if you're not playing AP then I don't see how it matters.

 

[Morrus]

It's not an official message board!

Yes it is. This messageboard is officially a messageboard. It’s the official EN World messageboard.