Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6674221" data-attributes="member: 37579">Reiterating what I said in the other thread:I was disappointing by the design of the fighter's subclasses, and commented as much in my review of the PHB. The problem is they're entirely differentiated by mechanics and not flavour, because it equates the complexity of the class with the subclass rather than another choice. For example, a theoretical cavalier subclass has to either be simple or complex (or in the middle), which might not satisfy some people. If they opt to make the cavalier simpler, a player who wants a complex fighter will have to choose to either play a class they don't entirely like or try and make a cavalier without actually taking the cavalier option. Because the story of fighters is detached from their choice of subclass, you don't associate the description of a fighter with its abilities. A grizzled soldier with a sword and shield could equally be a champion or battlemaster, as could a phalanx fighter with a spear, or a mobile fencer with a flashing rapier, or the mounted knight with a lance. The description of the character tells you nothing of the build or class features.A better design would have been tying the superiority dice to the fighter class itself. Such as allowing fighters to gain a simple class feature or maneuvers. So the complexity was independent of subclass. But they didn't go that direction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6674221, member: 37579"] Reiterating what I said in the other thread: I was disappointing by the design of the fighter's subclasses, and commented as much in my review of the PHB. The problem is they're entirely differentiated by mechanics and not flavour, because it equates the complexity of the class with the subclass rather than another choice. For example, a theoretical cavalier subclass has to either be simple or complex (or in the middle), which might not satisfy some people. If they opt to make the cavalier simpler, a player who wants a complex fighter will have to choose to either play a class they don't entirely like or try and make a cavalier without actually taking the cavalier option. Because the story of fighters is detached from their choice of subclass, you don't associate the description of a fighter with its abilities. A grizzled soldier with a sword and shield could equally be a champion or battlemaster, as could a phalanx fighter with a spear, or a mobile fencer with a flashing rapier, or the mounted knight with a lance. The description of the character tells you nothing of the build or class features. A better design would have been tying the superiority dice to the fighter class itself. Such as allowing fighters to gain a simple class feature or maneuvers. So the complexity was independent of subclass. But they didn't go that direction. [/QUOTE]

Verification