Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 5938495" data-attributes="member: 6694112">I fully expect 5e to have paladins and rangers and druids and a bunch of other classes it doesn't technically need. They're here to build bridges and sell books, not pare the game down to its theoretical minimum components.But you're assuming the big four are just flavorless vessels to pour backgrounds and themes into. A cleric of war, if anything, is more specific than a paladin. And they've probably chosen a god, unlike many interpretations of paladins, directly tying them to the setting. Their background and theme are just gravy.The fighter is pretty boring, but that's on fighters. Give them a "fighting style" equivalent of schemes or domains and they'd move right up there with the rest. There's absolutely nothing preventing WotC from including Arthur,  Roland, d'Artagnan, Conan, Aragorn, and Drizzt modules for the fighter  (or rogue).None of that's going to stop rangers and paladins from being in 5e, but fighters don't have to be flavorless anymore than paladins do.Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>