Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6674287" data-attributes="member: 37579">That's not flavour in the class though, that's flavour from the player. It's being added to the PC and isn't inherent to the class concept and build.That's a pretty darn HUGE assumption regarding his intent. He really seems to be focusing on the fact that a &quot;champion&quot; and &quot;battle master&quot; don't mean anything. Removed from the mechanics the names have no identity, and could have been swapped and no one would have noticed.It was easy to miss. There was a lot of different discussions going on.It's not that the mechanics in the subclasses are bad. But imagine if the champion had a smidge more flavour and the ability to opt into maneuvers. You can easily imagine a &quot;weaponmaster&quot; fighter that is the specialist with a particular type of weapon and gets improved crits with that. And the other abilities of the subclass are related to doing cool weapon things (boosting crit damage, hitting more reliably) rather than jumping or regaining hitpoints. There's so many neat ideas that could have worked as a fighter subclass: the phalanx fighter (master of the shield who blocks attacks to adjacent allies), the cavalier (mounted combatant with a lance), the brawler (fights unarmed and does dirty tricks), the reckless brute (designed to take the hits and shrug off damage), the gladiator (skilled with unusual and showy weapons and gains bonuses from Charisma), the swashbuckler (dashes about the battlefield, parrying blows and dodging attacks).&nbsp;Now, some of those can still be currently built. As is the class is pretty darn flexible. However, it's just as easy to not focus on a concept and have a character devoid of any flavour.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6674287, member: 37579"] That's not flavour in the class though, that's flavour from the player. It's being added to the PC and isn't inherent to the class concept and build. That's a pretty darn HUGE assumption regarding his intent. He really seems to be focusing on the fact that a "champion" and "battle master" don't [I]mean[/I] anything. Removed from the mechanics the names have no identity, and could have been swapped and no one would have noticed. It was easy to miss. There was a lot of different discussions going on. It's not that the mechanics in the subclasses are bad. But imagine if the champion had a smidge more flavour [I]and[/I] the ability to opt into maneuvers. You can easily imagine a "weaponmaster" fighter that is the specialist with a particular type of weapon and gets improved crits with that. And the other abilities of the subclass are related to doing cool weapon things (boosting crit damage, hitting more reliably) rather than jumping or regaining hitpoints. There's so many neat ideas that could have worked as a fighter subclass: the phalanx fighter (master of the shield who blocks attacks to adjacent allies), the cavalier (mounted combatant with a lance), the brawler (fights unarmed and does dirty tricks), the reckless brute (designed to take the hits and shrug off damage), the gladiator (skilled with unusual and showy weapons and gains bonuses from Charisma), the swashbuckler (dashes about the battlefield, parrying blows and dodging attacks). Now, some of those can still be currently built. As is the class is pretty darn flexible. However, it's just as easy to not focus on a concept and have a character devoid of any flavour. [/QUOTE]

Verification