Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7099503" data-attributes="member: 1465">One of the key concept of 5e design was to provide options for different playstyles, also with reference to &quot;preferred editions playstyles&quot;. Low complexity characters in the style of old BD&amp;D/AD&amp;D editions, as well as high complexity characters in the 3e/4e style were the target.More ambitiously, the purpose was to allow freedom for individual players, so not just rules optional modules that increase complexity for everyone at the table. All this was supposed to be independent on the narrative, for instance ending the traditional ogreshit of &quot;Fighters should be simple, Wizards should be complex&quot;, simply because there are TONS of beginner players who want to play a spellcaster, but also many experienced players who might be interested in a complex Fighter.If WotC has failed to deliver, is only in the fact that they stopped at the Fighter, which is really the only class which clearly offers a low-complexity and a high-complexity archetype.So yes, the Champion and Battlemaster archetypes are supposed to differentiate mostly on mechanics, pretty much to avoid significant narrative discrimination.But that said, the two archetypes are not completely without narrative. The Champion is the kind of fighter that never strays off the main path of being effective, it's the warrior that keeps fighting in the same way, accumulating experience and efficiency: if anything, it should have been called the Veteran (lit. the &quot;aged&quot;) which simply goes through the motion of one war or battle after the other, honing his skills and focusing on getting things done quickly, like a boxer who learns 3 different punches, and after that it's just gym and sparring over and over. Instead, the Battlemaster is the scholar that keeps looking for alternatives to maximize flexibility and adaptivity, like a martial artist who keeps adding new techniques to her repertoire.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7099503, member: 1465"] One of the key concept of 5e design was to provide options for different playstyles, also with reference to "preferred editions playstyles". Low complexity characters in the style of old BD&D/AD&D editions, as well as high complexity characters in the 3e/4e style were the target. More ambitiously, the purpose was to allow freedom for individual players, so not just rules optional modules that increase complexity for everyone at the table. All this was supposed to be [I]independent[/I] on the narrative, for instance ending the traditional ogreshit of "Fighters should be simple, Wizards should be complex", simply because there are TONS of beginner players who want to play a spellcaster, but also many experienced players who might be interested in a complex Fighter. If WotC has failed to deliver, is only in the fact that [I]they stopped at the Fighter[/I], which is really the only class which clearly offers a low-complexity and a high-complexity archetype. So yes, the Champion and Battlemaster archetypes are supposed to differentiate mostly on mechanics, pretty much to avoid significant narrative discrimination. But that said, the two archetypes are not [I]completely[/I] without narrative. The [B]Champion [/B]is the kind of fighter that never strays off the main path of being effective, it's the warrior that keeps fighting in the same way, accumulating experience and efficiency: if anything, it should have been called the [B]Veteran [/B](lit. the "aged") which simply goes through the motion of one war or battle after the other, honing his skills and focusing on getting things done quickly, like a [I]boxer [/I]who learns 3 different punches, and after that it's just gym and sparring over and over. Instead, the [B]Battlemaster[/B] is the scholar that keeps looking for alternatives to maximize flexibility and adaptivity, like a [I]martial artist[/I] who keeps adding new techniques to her repertoire. [/QUOTE]

Verification