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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AngryMojo" data-source="post: 5949757" data-attributes="member: 83096">I think the biggest problem is that the fighter encompasses too broad a range of archetypes.  It may be the least focused class in the game, it's supposed to cover a non-ranger archer, a non-paladin knight, a non-rogue fencer as well as a man at arms, city guardsman, mercenary swordsman, brute muscleman, military commander etc.  The fighter's only universal defining feature is that he fights.  When your entire class description focuses on a single pillar, and something that everybody in the game does, you run into design problems.This is why, God help me, I'd like to see the fighter broken up into different classes.  Building a "Knight" class or a fencer, soldier or thug makes the design much easier and gives the class more of an identity.  Knights engage in diplomacy and courtly activity, fencers can have the charismatic rake about them, soldiers can be the tacticians who know all about logistics and thugs can work in the shadows and be all intimidating.  I kind of see "fighter" as being more like "arcanist" than "wizard."  The latter implies a specific form of magic, while the former implies a very large category of magic.  We don't seem to have a problem with multiple ways to cast arcane or divine magic bleeding over into an archetype that covers all three pillars, why does there seem to be a perceptive problem when you add this to the fighter?I think the most logical approach would be either have a small number of broad classes with multiple sublclasses each, or define the fighter as one specific archetype and introduce other classes to fill the remaining styles.  WotC has stated that all the classes that have appeared in previous PhB's will be in the game, so we'll likely have Cavaliers, Warlords and even Barbarians.  All could be sublclasses under the fighter umbrella, or they could fill seperate archetypes and make the fighter something specific.I support the sublcass idea more than anything else, for some reason there's a huge amount of backlash from some crowds whenever a term is "redefined" by WotC.  It also speaks to a bit more modularity, as those who want a simpler game can say "no subclasses" or subclasses themselves can be a module.</blockquote>

Verification