Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 7864108" data-attributes="member: 1210">Oh, the warlord! That's another example of what I think deserves to be a full class- in this case, because making it a subclass of fighter fails to allow the types of warlords that 4e enabled (specifically the archetype of the leader who doesn't use attacks himself but instead gives them all away- you really can't do that as a first level fighter). See, and the brawler doesn't seem conceptually unique at all to me. It's a guy who fights unarmed- either a monk or a fighter or a multiclass of the two. I just don't think it's distinct enough. I think that your criteria for justifying a full class is far... looser?... than mine. Mine would require that it not be achievable with the existing classes and that it not be able to fit as a subclass under one or more of the existing classes. (And/or feats.)So again, I think the difference in our perspective is one of degree. This is a great discussion, by the way!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 7864108, member: 1210"] Oh, the warlord! That's another example of what I think deserves to be a full class- in this case, because making it a subclass of fighter fails to allow the types of warlords that 4e enabled (specifically the archetype of the leader who doesn't use attacks himself but instead gives them all away- you really can't do that as a first level fighter). See, and the brawler doesn't seem conceptually unique at all to me. It's a guy who fights unarmed- either a monk or a fighter or a multiclass of the two. I just don't think it's distinct enough. I think that your criteria for justifying a full class is far... looser?... than mine. Mine would require that it not be achievable with the existing classes and that it not be able to fit as a subclass under one or more of the existing classes. (And/or feats.) So again, I think the difference in our perspective is one of degree. This is a great discussion, by the way! [/QUOTE]

Verification