NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Muh" data-source="post: 9170508" data-attributes="member: 7042567">The way 5e is currently designed fighter is essentially the only way you can play a martial character that isn't weighted down by excessively specific flavour. Assume for a second that you don't know too much of the specifics of the system and you only hear the names of the classes and you want to play a fighter-type character. The inspiration? Could be anything, really. Characters focused on using melee weapons are quite common in fiction.Let's be crazy and take Tanjirou from Demon Slayer. We want to make a character waving around a cool katana and killing demons.1: Monk is obviously kung-fu stuff and is out.2: Barbarian is out because the implied flavour is obviously primitive and uneducated. People might make associations with tribal life.3: Ranger is out because weird nature stuff.4: Paladin is out because it's heavily religiously flavoured and that does not match many fictional swordsmen.5: Rogue is out because we're not making a thief.Yeah you can circumvent some of the above objections by allowing reflavouring, but that's not necessarily going to avoid the issue I'm getting at. People have some particular idea for a character in their mind, and obvious mental images will jump at them as they consider the list of classes.Fighter is the obvious choice for the character because it has the least amount of specific baggage.Think of it as a default case. There's pretty much nothing to "object" to.My point is that people pick it not because it is the epitome of martial design, but because unlike less popular classes like paladin it doesn't reject players through uninteresting flavour.</blockquote>

Verification