Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6674786" data-attributes="member: 1465">I agree with you this time. For me their announced idea of using subclasses also as a complexity dial sounded excellent. So why did they stop at the Fighter? They could have at least kept their Academic Wizard, and have an Indiana Jones - inspired low-complexity Rogue that is neither a thief or assassin or spellcaster.I also wonder if Mearls remembers how many more flavorful subclasses they had in their hands during the playtest. They had a 'Knight' and a 'Gladiator' subclass, but they listened to some voices saying 'Knight should be a background' or 'Gladiator is too specific', so they only have themselves to blame. Note that I don't think it was a bad move to make the maneuvers-based subclass more generic, but they could still have kept the Gladiator in a different shape.As for the existing classes, Eldritch Knight is specific enough for me, even if you can vary the chosen spells. My only regret about the Champion is the name, which I think it sounds inappropriate (not a native English speaker here, but 'champion' sounds to me like the champion of a cause, or otherwise a tribe or even an individual lord) if not outright stupid (first image that came to my mind, was Regdar and Tordek going back to the tavern from the dungeon, spend all the treasure in ale and go party singing 'we are the champions...'). I think it should have been called the Veteran because all the features represent just going through the motion and getting better at the same few generic skills, no further explanations.I don't have a better name for the Battlemaster. Anyway, IMHO this is a great subclass because in reality it is many subclasses merged together. You can pick all the friends-supporting maneuvers and be a Warlord, or you can pick another list and be a Duelist, a Bodyguard and so on... but you can also cherry-pick freely and be more generic. This is similar to what they have done with the elemental Monk and with the Totem Barbarian: you can be a 'fire monk' or 'air monk' but also a more generic 'elemental monk'. You can be a cougar barbarian or a bear barbarian but also a more generic 'wild animals barbarian'.There is of course always a trade-off, because restrictions increase flavor but obviously impede freedom. But what if it is only a matter of presentation? Why not just presenting the maneuvers by type (one maneuver has one type), or suggesting styles (one maneuver may belong to multiple styles)? They can do this without changing anything in the existing class!</blockquote>

Verification