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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Abstruse" data-source="post: 5939861" data-attributes="member: 6669048">And what is that archetype exactly? That's one of the questions I've been trying to get answered. What specifically about that archetype means that it is fundamentally different from a cleric? Something other than just backstory because I can roleplay my warpriest-build cleric just like a holy knight.No, Mearls has talked about the fighter getting two themes to allow more versatility in the class in response to complaints the fighter class was "boring". The Guardian theme is the only theme that can really be pulled out and slapped onto it with the current playtest builds we have. I really don't think they're going to put the fighter into more of a guardian/defender/tank role. If they did, that'd encroach even further into what everyone keeps saying the paladin is, making it even less justifiable as a separate class.I don't hate 4e. It's just a different system. I like it for what it is and I've got at least two campaign ideas I'd like to run under that system. What I don't like is applying the 4e concept of "roles" to Next because it's counter to what every bit of the design is showing. They're trying to move away from classes being shoehorned into specific roles and allowed more organic builds, so players can create interesting characters without worrying about some pre-defined role.Going back to something that's been said about the sorcerer - make the theme alter the class abilities. "If the Ranger theme is used with the Rogue class, all sneak attack dice are instead treated as favored enemy/hunter's quarry/whatever."The current fighter build. I'm sick of this argument from the WotC boards and from my own players. The build of the fighter that was released was a specific build style called "slayer" in 4e (and what I've been calling it after its theme). It's the same style build that people in 3.x/PF put together when they want to play a warrior with a giant eff-off sword or axe but don't want to deal with the hassle of all the math involved with the Barbarian's Rage ability. The entire purpose of that build is to do damage, then do more damage, then do a bit more damage, and look I found a bit of damage in that little pocket that's inside my bigger pocket that no one ever uses. Until they release more pregens or the character generation rules, calling the fighter "boring" is premature and incredibly unfair because we haven't actually seen the variations in the fighter class.Frankly, the fighter is probably the single most versatile class. The archetype of "fighter" is so broad and encompassing because it's something that's grounded in reality. I can point to Inago Montoya or Jon Snow or Leonidas or D'artagnan or Kratos or blah blah blah and say "That's a fighter, let's figure out his stats." You can pull from different cultures, different time periods, different fighting styles. It's still a fighter. So saying that the "fighter seems too vanilla" doesn't hold up, at least not until we get enough options to see what the fighter class can do.</blockquote>

Verification