Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6675176" data-attributes="member: 996">Sorry if it's been said already, but:'Champion' certainly means something.&nbsp; A champion fights for someone, for a liege lord or for a helpless ward or for the weak in general, or for something a cause or religion or kingdom or leader or even vengeance.&nbsp; The archetype just doesn't really deliver on any of those meanings.&nbsp; 'Battlemaster' is obviously a portmanteau devised specifically for 5e, it just as obviously can't be evocative, being newly-minted.&nbsp; In fact, it might well be that it was chosen specifically to be free of connotations or baggage.Eldritch Knight certainly seems evocative and meaningful.&nbsp; You've got the ancient/arcane-magic/secrets of 'Eldritch' coupled with the familiar and nuanced 'Knight' (evoking the knight in shining armor, the over-zealous do-gooder, and the privilege of nobility).&nbsp; It takes a background to deliver on the nobility aspect, and the class may not lend itself overmuch to shining armor (DEX builds being at least as attractive), but doesn't seem like it falls that far short.&nbsp; The archetype can fight, can wear heavy armor, and can cast spells.&nbsp; Maybe there could be more fluff about the orders such knights belong to?As for the 'complexity' issue, the gap in complexity between the Champion (two short-rest-recharge abilities) and the Battlemaster (adds two short-rest-recharge CS dice that can each be used for one of three things) is not that vast.&nbsp; The EK gets some real complexity, but the fact he chooses known spells rather than being able to prep daily, and restricted list they're chosen from make him one of the less complex casters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6675176, member: 996"] Sorry if it's been said already, but: 'Champion' certainly means something. A champion fights for someone, for a liege lord or for a helpless ward or for the weak in general, or for something a cause or religion or kingdom or leader or even vengeance. The archetype just doesn't really deliver on any of those meanings. 'Battlemaster' is obviously a portmanteau devised specifically for 5e, it just as obviously can't be evocative, being newly-minted. In fact, it might well be that it was chosen specifically to be free of connotations or baggage. Eldritch Knight certainly seems evocative and meaningful. You've got the ancient/arcane-magic/secrets of 'Eldritch' coupled with the familiar and nuanced 'Knight' (evoking the knight in shining armor, the over-zealous do-gooder, and the privilege of nobility). It takes a background to deliver on the nobility aspect, and the class may not lend itself overmuch to shining armor (DEX builds being at least as attractive), but doesn't seem like it falls that far short. The archetype can fight, can wear heavy armor, and can cast spells. Maybe there could be more fluff about the orders such knights belong to? As for the 'complexity' issue, the gap in complexity between the Champion (two short-rest-recharge abilities) and the Battlemaster (adds two short-rest-recharge CS dice that can each be used for one of three things) is not that vast. The EK gets some real complexity, but the fact he chooses known spells rather than being able to prep daily, and restricted list they're chosen from make him one of the less complex casters. [/QUOTE]

Verification