Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6674656" data-attributes="member: 40177">That's a good thing.&nbsp; Loose mechanics (like the fighter) means broad interpretations.&nbsp; It's like in older editions, where you could have the same character class/race combination and still have one character be a pirate, another a barbarian raider, and a third a canny knight.&nbsp; The second you tie mechanics to flavour, you're stuck there.&nbsp; Which is fine if someone wants that flavour, but the second someone wants to cover something else, they're hooped.&nbsp; The fighter SHOULD be broad, and lacking in specific flavour.&nbsp; After all, 99% of the military types in our own world would be called &quot;fighters&quot;, and no one can say that a Roman Legion, a Gaulish barbarian, a viking warrior, and a navy SEAL are at all similar.&nbsp; Sure, but then, the same can be said about &quot;fighter&quot;.&nbsp; The fighter in our 5e game is a battlemaster with a shield.&nbsp; And he rarely even draws his weapon.&nbsp; In fact, the eladrin wizard has used his melee weapon more often than our &quot;fighter&quot;.&nbsp; No one really frets over the fact that his character 'class' doesn't actually reflect what he does in game (which is, grant temp hp, give advantage, and prevent his allies from getting hit).&nbsp; They can opt in.&nbsp; Feats exist, after all.&nbsp; And as I say above, I don't think the champion SHOULD have that flavour. It's just a mechanical &quot;this is the simple fighter option.&nbsp; Have fun.&quot;&nbsp; This is a great design aspect of 5e - you can pick your level of complexity, and then flavour to taste.&nbsp; SOO much better than, say, Pathfinder, which requires a lot of rules-ese to get the flavour you want.&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; But then you get to the point where &quot;I'm an expert in the falchion.&nbsp; I'm the only fighter in the group.&nbsp; I specialize in a weird weapon... as the GM, you either award us common magical weapons that I can't use, or only give us magical weapons that I can use that threaten the believability of the world&quot;.&nbsp; We've had weapon-masters before.&nbsp; They seldom work well in -any- edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; They basically turn into a feat tax system, where you either specialize in a weapon to stay at &quot;par&quot;, or you skip doing that and fall behind.&nbsp; It exists, and it's called the &quot;protection&quot; fighter style.&nbsp; It's pretty awesome.Also, that's not what a phalanx is.&nbsp; You're thinking a legion style.&nbsp; The phalanx really didn't have much to do with shields.&nbsp; It was more about creating a wall of pikes that made a frontal assault impossible.&nbsp; Which was why the phalanx was so vulnerable to the flanks and rear, and why the people that used it, such as Alexander the Great, wound up relying instead on heavy cavalry.&nbsp; There's a feat for that.&nbsp; And that.That's a barbarian.&nbsp; And I'm glad the fighter doesn't compete with the role of another class.&nbsp; Fighter with the Entertainer background, which makes perfect sense.&nbsp; If you want the charisma bonuses, make him or her a battlemaster.&nbsp; But then, in 4e, we complained about people using whatever ability score they wanted to modify physical attacks...&nbsp;Both rogues and monks do that as their schtick.&nbsp; And again, I'm glad the fighter doesn't step on other classes' toes.&nbsp; Also, there's a new fighting style that does that as well.&nbsp; &nbsp;And I disagree.&nbsp; It's better to have a class that's written clearly and concisely, and let the players build their flavour off that.&nbsp; This is MUCH easier than trying to remove the flavour written in and then modifying for your own purposes.&nbsp; It's going to be a lot easier to make a samurai in 5e right now, as written, than it would be to use a fighter in, say, pathfinder to do the same thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6674656, member: 40177"] That's a good thing. Loose mechanics (like the fighter) means broad interpretations. It's like in older editions, where you could have the same character class/race combination and still have one character be a pirate, another a barbarian raider, and a third a canny knight. The second you tie mechanics to flavour, you're stuck there. Which is fine if someone wants that flavour, but the second someone wants to cover something else, they're hooped. The fighter SHOULD be broad, and lacking in specific flavour. After all, 99% of the military types in our own world would be called "fighters", and no one can say that a Roman Legion, a Gaulish barbarian, a viking warrior, and a navy SEAL are at all similar. Sure, but then, the same can be said about "fighter". The fighter in our 5e game is a battlemaster with a shield. And he rarely even draws his weapon. In fact, the eladrin wizard has used his melee weapon more often than our "fighter". No one really frets over the fact that his character 'class' doesn't actually reflect what he does in game (which is, grant temp hp, give advantage, and prevent his allies from getting hit). They can opt in. Feats exist, after all. And as I say above, I don't think the champion SHOULD have that flavour. It's just a mechanical "this is the simple fighter option. Have fun." This is a great design aspect of 5e - you can pick your level of complexity, and then flavour to taste. SOO much better than, say, Pathfinder, which requires a lot of rules-ese to get the flavour you want. Sure. But then you get to the point where "I'm an expert in the falchion. I'm the only fighter in the group. I specialize in a weird weapon... as the GM, you either award us common magical weapons that I can't use, or only give us magical weapons that I can use that threaten the believability of the world". We've had weapon-masters before. They seldom work well in -any- edition of D&D. They basically turn into a feat tax system, where you either specialize in a weapon to stay at "par", or you skip doing that and fall behind. It exists, and it's called the "protection" fighter style. It's pretty awesome. Also, that's not what a phalanx is. You're thinking a legion style. The phalanx really didn't have much to do with shields. It was more about creating a wall of pikes that made a frontal assault impossible. Which was why the phalanx was so vulnerable to the flanks and rear, and why the people that used it, such as Alexander the Great, wound up relying instead on heavy cavalry. There's a feat for that. And that. That's a barbarian. And I'm glad the fighter doesn't compete with the role of another class. Fighter with the Entertainer background, which makes perfect sense. If you want the charisma bonuses, make him or her a battlemaster. But then, in 4e, we complained about people using whatever ability score they wanted to modify physical attacks... Both rogues and monks do that as their schtick. And again, I'm glad the fighter doesn't step on other classes' toes. Also, there's a new fighting style that does that as well. And I disagree. It's better to have a class that's written clearly and concisely, and let the players build their flavour off that. This is MUCH easier than trying to remove the flavour written in and then modifying for your own purposes. It's going to be a lot easier to make a samurai in 5e right now, as written, than it would be to use a fighter in, say, pathfinder to do the same thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification