Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6674328" data-attributes="member: 92511">TO be honest, the broadness and fact that you can take a Champion Fighter and make them ANYthing, works just fine for me. EVERY class needed one of those. A "general, simple, non-specific default" of the class. The fact this was an Evoker Wizard and a Thief Rogue are really open to debate. But a Champion Fighter fills the bill beautifully.Then add other subclasses that get more specific or add complexity or narrow [to a point] in concept. So, other than the fact that "Battle Master" really does mean nothing, and the term warlord carried waaay too much baggage, I think the Fighter worked great.Champion = generic defaultBattlemaster = added mechanic complexityEldritch knight = added mechanic complexity and story/narrative restrictions/specific assumptions [in this case, learning/having access to arcane magic]I would have much preferred a "generalist Wizard" default. A "basic" thief-Rogue default. And I suppose "general/pantheon-wide or cause/alignment-specific" cleric. Specifying into Domains.BUT, we gotta works with what we gots. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />[EDIT to add] So basically,what we should see in the case of additional subclasses coming out, would [to my mind] be something like this...Cavalier: goes in the "Battlemaster" tier. Their shtick is basically they do mounted better [<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />]. Different Mechanic complexity. Something like a "Brawler" as a subclass, would fall here also. The class complexity/differentiation is mechanically based. No explicit or implied story or narrative assumptions need be made about these guys. You can make characters of a fairly wide diversity with just their mechanics making them different from other subclasses.Things like: Warlord, Gladiator, Knight would be en par with the Eldritch Knight. They have/need both mechanics and story/flavor assumptions to make them different enough to warrant their creation instead of just playing a champion with feats/skills/backgrounds that can give you a "gladiator" character or a battlemaster + feats/skills/backgrounds that give you a "warlord." Those options are still completely valid and available for players, but to make these concepts a subclass of their own, they need the mechanics and the flavor specificity to, for me, justify their existence.At the same time, I would very much like bloat to be avoided. So just because someone can come up with a synonym for "warrior" that has a slightly different connotation or mechanic speciality, is not, to me, a "good enough" reason to make it a subclass. Does any of this make sense or am I just talking out my arse/making things more complicated than they needs be?</blockquote>

Verification