Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6674716" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I see where Mearls is coming from, and don't entirely disagree.&nbsp; But the fighter was a tough nut to crack, given that it seems the feedback was virtually 50-50 on desired levels of complexity.&nbsp; Some folks wanted a very simple, vanilla fighter that would be fun with newbies and/or the less-tactically inclined, but a roughly equal number of folks wanted fighters just as complex and option filled as casters.&nbsp; And unlike rogues, where subclasses are actually thematically quite similar, but with different emphases, there's just a wide range of possibilities encompassed in &quot;fighter&quot;.So actually I think they threaded that needle pretty cleanly.&nbsp; And I actually think there is more flavorful differentiation in the subclasses than is normally given credit for.&nbsp; The Champion relies very much on innate strength, skill, and ability.&nbsp; As their subclass features center around improvement of innate ability: more damaging criticals, greater resilience, increased physical capabilities through Remarkable Athlete.&nbsp; The Battle Master, OTOH, is much more of a learned fighter.&nbsp; Its subclass features center around study: ability with artisan tools, the ability to learn from an enemy by observation, codified techniques.&nbsp; Fezzik is a Champion.&nbsp; Inigo and the Man in Black are Battle Masters.&nbsp; Luke is a Champion.&nbsp; Vader is a Battle Master.&nbsp; The Hound is a Champion.&nbsp; Jaime Lannister is a Battle Master.Another way of looking at it is Champions represent enlisted men, the rank and file who are trained to fight.&nbsp; Battle Masters represent the officer class -- study in addition to training.&nbsp; If they hadn't used it on a background, the Champion might have been called &quot;Veteran&quot;, representing ability through innate skill and experience.&nbsp; The Battle Master might then be called &quot;Man-at-Arms&quot;, or more inclusively, &quot;Captain&quot;.&nbsp; This would be more flavorful, strongly relating to each class's features, and avoiding the vague, not-natural titles they currently bear.At any rate, I'm glad we have two fighters of differing complexity, with enough abstractness of flavor to create many different kinds of fighters through subclass, fighting styles, feats, and backgrounds.&nbsp; Having that, I can now look forward to more specifically flavored subclasses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6674716, member: 6680772"] I see where Mearls is coming from, and don't entirely disagree. But the fighter was a tough nut to crack, given that it seems the feedback was virtually 50-50 on desired levels of complexity. Some folks wanted a very simple, vanilla fighter that would be fun with newbies and/or the less-tactically inclined, but a roughly equal number of folks wanted fighters just as complex and option filled as casters. And unlike rogues, where subclasses are actually thematically quite similar, but with different emphases, there's just a wide range of possibilities encompassed in "fighter". So actually I think they threaded that needle pretty cleanly. And I actually think there is more flavorful differentiation in the subclasses than is normally given credit for. The Champion relies very much on innate strength, skill, and ability. As their subclass features center around improvement of innate ability: more damaging criticals, greater resilience, increased physical capabilities through Remarkable Athlete. The Battle Master, OTOH, is much more of a learned fighter. Its subclass features center around study: ability with artisan tools, the ability to learn from an enemy by observation, codified techniques. Fezzik is a Champion. Inigo and the Man in Black are Battle Masters. Luke is a Champion. Vader is a Battle Master. The Hound is a Champion. Jaime Lannister is a Battle Master. Another way of looking at it is Champions represent enlisted men, the rank and file who are trained to fight. Battle Masters represent the officer class -- study in addition to training. If they hadn't used it on a background, the Champion might have been called "Veteran", representing ability through innate skill and experience. The Battle Master might then be called "Man-at-Arms", or more inclusively, "Captain". This would be more flavorful, strongly relating to each class's features, and avoiding the vague, not-natural titles they currently bear. At any rate, I'm glad we have two fighters of differing complexity, with enough abstractness of flavor to create many different kinds of fighters through subclass, fighting styles, feats, and backgrounds. Having that, I can now look forward to more specifically flavored subclasses. [/QUOTE]

Verification