Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ninjayeti" data-source="post: 6675133" data-attributes="member: 6789120">If the issue is that you want mechanics to support your concept, then why not work with the existing mechanics?&nbsp; To use your example: if a canny knight is mechanically a fighter that wears armor more effectively and fights better mounted then isn't that covered by the Defense fighting style (+1 AC while wearing armor) and the mounted combatant feat? Reading through this thread it seems like 95% of the subclasses people are asking for could already be covered with existing backgrounds, fighting styles, and/or feats and the rest could be done through muticlassing.&nbsp; It strikes me as a recipe for rules bloat if we are creating a bunch of new subclasses that replicate things we already have existing rules for.&nbsp; (Yes, most races don't get feats until 4th level, but most subclasses don't kick in until 3rd level so I don't see this as a game breaking difference).&nbsp; If the issue is Mearls' original point that the fighter subclasses lack flavor then I am not sure how a &quot;knight&quot; built using existing background/feats and fighting styles is any less flavorful than one that has an official &quot;knight&quot; subclass. &nbsp; Actually a blank slate gives people the MOST to work with.&nbsp; Giving people a few cookie cutter subclasses is not going to produce interesting characters.&nbsp; Giving creative players some tools and room to work will.The issues you raise here seem to be more about wanting more rules options for the fighter class.&nbsp; Which is totally fair - but is different than saying the fighter subclasses lack flavor, which is the original point of the post.&nbsp; Totally true.&nbsp; But Mearls' original point was that the fighter subclasses need a stronger flavor and identity.&nbsp; If your point is that people will ignore that flavor of the new subclasses and just use the additional mechanics then you are not really solving the problem Mearls raises - your are just asking for more rules options for fighters.&nbsp; Fair point.&nbsp; But are a bunch of new subclasses the only solution to this issue?&nbsp; Couldn't you just include a bunch of fighter archetypes with suggested builds for new players?&nbsp; (E.g. &quot;If you want your fighter to be a scout, put your highest score in Dex, take the Outlander background and the Archery fighting style.&nbsp; At 6th level take the Sharpshooter feat.&quot;)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ninjayeti, post: 6675133, member: 6789120"] If the issue is that you want mechanics to support your concept, then why not work with the existing mechanics? To use your example: if a canny knight is mechanically a fighter that wears armor more effectively and fights better mounted then isn't that covered by the Defense fighting style (+1 AC while wearing armor) and the mounted combatant feat? Reading through this thread it seems like 95% of the subclasses people are asking for could already be covered with existing backgrounds, fighting styles, and/or feats and the rest could be done through muticlassing. It strikes me as a recipe for rules bloat if we are creating a bunch of new subclasses that replicate things we already have existing rules for. (Yes, most races don't get feats until 4th level, but most subclasses don't kick in until 3rd level so I don't see this as a game breaking difference). If the issue is Mearls' original point that the fighter subclasses lack flavor then I am not sure how a "knight" built using existing background/feats and fighting styles is any less flavorful than one that has an official "knight" subclass. Actually a blank slate gives people the MOST to work with. Giving people a few cookie cutter subclasses is not going to produce interesting characters. Giving creative players some tools and room to work will. The issues you raise here seem to be more about wanting more rules options for the fighter class. Which is totally fair - but is different than saying the fighter subclasses lack flavor, which is the original point of the post. Totally true. But Mearls' original point was that the fighter subclasses need a stronger flavor and identity. If your point is that people will ignore that flavor of the new subclasses and just use the additional mechanics then you are not really solving the problem Mearls raises - your are just asking for more rules options for fighters. Fair point. But are a bunch of new subclasses the only solution to this issue? Couldn't you just include a bunch of fighter archetypes with suggested builds for new players? (E.g. "If you want your fighter to be a scout, put your highest score in Dex, take the Outlander background and the Archery fighting style. At 6th level take the Sharpshooter feat.") [/QUOTE]

Verification