Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7100761" data-attributes="member: 6802951">This is coming across as you wanting more subclasses for the Fighter purely because some other classes get more: numbers for the sake of the numbers.Not because you have specific concepts that require subclasses of the fighter to express that cannot be expressed with the current subclasses. Can you give a quick run-down of the subclass mechanics of each of these, and why they are necessary as specific separate subclasses please?I generally view the distinction between Champion and Battlemaster as being similar in concept to the distinction between Sorceror and Wizard: two different methods and mechanics for the same broad concept. That doesn't mean that I believe that Champion and Battlemaster need to be two separate classes however: They work as they are.I also think that you need to actually look and think about what the numbers of Wizard and Cleric subclasses that you are fixated on represent.The wizard subclasses are simply the school of spells that the wizard emphasises. The Cleric's are just the aspect of their deity that they emphasise.To my mind, that is equivalent to the Fighter's decision on the type of weapon or fighting style that they emphasise: they aren't concepts like the Rogue's archetypes, they are just expressions of specialisation like a Fighter picking Duelling style or the GWM feat for their Fighter bonus class feat.Personally I like the way that the PHB Fighter subclasses aren't limited in scope to specific concepts. If I want to play a Samurai, I'm not pushed towards the Samurai Fighter Subclass: I can just play a Champion and use the decision points already in the class to bring out the concept. I agree with Mearls that the Champion subclass doesn't carry specific baggage with it, but disagree with him if he is stating that that is a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification