Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7101452" data-attributes="member: 20323">Absolutely! That inherent conflict between needs of a beginner player (or a "Story First" player) and needs of a veteran player (or a "Mechanics First") player is something that – from reading in between the lines of the designer interviews – they want to build up to. Their first priority was – for the most part, Fighter being the big exception – creating archetypes recognizable to players both new and lapsed. From all the anecdotes I'm hearing, sounds like they've accomplished that. With that baseline of success, now it's possible for them to explore some other mechanical options that appeal to veteran players. Same reason they started with more pre-packaged adventure paths in the Forgotten Realms to establish a baseline, and are slowly expanding from there. Very sensible strategy.Well, I'd take the "traditional stuff is only included in 5e" thinking with a grain of salt. Yes, it's mostly based on tradition, but there are notable exceptions... Look at the Concentration mechanics. Look at the Oath of Ancients paladin. Look at the inclusion of spending hit dice to heal during a short rest. Look at the Warlock as originating in the 3e era. Look at the Monk sub-classes (probably originated in 3e also). Look at the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn. Look at the indie-style roleplaying mechanics and Inspiration.Yeah, I think that's a good example of a disconnect between narrative and mechanics. For example, the Thief's Second Story Work feature is a mechanic reinforcing the narrative of "The Thief is the guy who breaks in and steals stuff." But the 5e Sorcerer mechanics neither go the distance to meaningfully differentiate it from the Wizard nor support its own narrative of "The Sorcerer is born of magic, with magic in his or her veins."Sidenote: In one of my games inspired by The Witcher, I've rewritten the Sorcerer to better reflect that game's mythos, but also in the process more substantially differentiate the class from the Wizard.To return to the Fighter – The Fighter core class is only lightly differentiated from other warrior-type classes; Action Surge could be seen as fulfilling a similar differentiating role as the Sorcerer's Metamagic (the main thing that distinguishes Sorcerer from Wizard). However, the Fighter's subclasses *do* differentiate it mechanically. So in that respect, the design of the Fighter succeeds. But it comes at the cost of identity.Yeah, that's my observation as well. It's something I'm curious about. Are these conscious design choices being made? For example: Why do we (putting ourselves in the designers' shoes) want to differentiate Fighter subclasses primarily by fighting technique without attached narrative? Do we have play data or assumptions we've made about the sorts of players who play Fighters that makes breaking down subclass by technique appropriate for the Fighter, but not, say, for the Rogue or Paladin?</blockquote>

Verification