Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Thoughts on Mearls' Comments on Fighter Subclasses Lacking Identity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 6674532" data-attributes="member: 19265"><p>Oh, I am so glad Mike mentioned this. It is exactly what I was trying to convey in my thread where I asked people to view the fighter subclasses I had done.</p><p></p><p>And funnily enough, most criticism about them was 'these are not concepts/archetypes'. To which I was replying 'Exactly - neither are the ones in the PHB'. So I created other subclasses that used different mechanics. But, as I felt there is also room for concepts (real archetypes) I ALSO created some subclasses more bout flavour and playstyle.</p><p></p><p>This is not really about whether you like either. You can have both and Mike seems to wish there were some archetypes in there. I doubt the subclasses where you get to build the concept will be erased. They will still be there and then there may be (it sounds like) concept build in the future.</p><p></p><p>Battlemaster & Champion are not really archetypes/concepts. But you CAN build concepts/archetypes with them. Obviously some people like that and that is fine. Other people also want to see some fighter concepts (much like the other classes have been built) and that is fine too. It just makes it a little odd now. To do a duelist for example, you need to compare to a champion duelist or a battlemaster duelist. (Though some people may love that there would be 3 ways to do it). No use creating duelist concept if battlemaster builds a better one. So hard to trump these with 'flavour'.</p><p></p><p>Therefore, I tried to do both for most of my fighter archetypes. (Calling them archetypes is also a problem, when they are not). Concept AND new mechanics to play off. Seems though, new mechanics were not popular.</p><p></p><p>Here if interested: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?452131-5-Fighter-Archetypes" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?452131-5-Fighter-Archetypes</a>. </p><p></p><p>Anyway, rambling, but I am sure glad Mike made the point. A point others, like myself, have tried to make. Now we have a discussion on it and there are many good posts above pointing out the difference of fighter subclasses from others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Connorsrpg, post: 6674532, member: 19265"] Oh, I am so glad Mike mentioned this. It is exactly what I was trying to convey in my thread where I asked people to view the fighter subclasses I had done. And funnily enough, most criticism about them was 'these are not concepts/archetypes'. To which I was replying 'Exactly - neither are the ones in the PHB'. So I created other subclasses that used different mechanics. But, as I felt there is also room for concepts (real archetypes) I ALSO created some subclasses more bout flavour and playstyle. This is not really about whether you like either. You can have both and Mike seems to wish there were some archetypes in there. I doubt the subclasses where you get to build the concept will be erased. They will still be there and then there may be (it sounds like) concept build in the future. Battlemaster & Champion are not really archetypes/concepts. But you CAN build concepts/archetypes with them. Obviously some people like that and that is fine. Other people also want to see some fighter concepts (much like the other classes have been built) and that is fine too. It just makes it a little odd now. To do a duelist for example, you need to compare to a champion duelist or a battlemaster duelist. (Though some people may love that there would be 3 ways to do it). No use creating duelist concept if battlemaster builds a better one. So hard to trump these with 'flavour'. Therefore, I tried to do both for most of my fighter archetypes. (Calling them archetypes is also a problem, when they are not). Concept AND new mechanics to play off. Seems though, new mechanics were not popular. Here if interested: [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?452131-5-Fighter-Archetypes"]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?452131-5-Fighter-Archetypes[/URL]. Anyway, rambling, but I am sure glad Mike made the point. A point others, like myself, have tried to make. Now we have a discussion on it and there are many good posts above pointing out the difference of fighter subclasses from others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Thoughts on Mearls' Comments on Fighter Subclasses Lacking Identity
Top