Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 6675263" data-attributes="member: 63508">I liked Weaponmaster better.I'd goChampion -&gt; WarriorBattlemaster -&gt; WeaponmasterThe fighter can function as a defender with the protection fighting style. They do it better with feat and even better with the marking variant.It's only healer, leader, controller, and blaster they can't do. But there's no nonmagical version of any of those in 5e.There's more than a few.The flaw of making the fighter very vanilla and very generic is that you spread it's focus. By doing that you handle everything at a poorer quality. The only way to counter it is to actively search out the gaps.&nbsp; And Mearls said they spent so much time trying to make those subclasses, they didn't notice a lot of other things in the fight.Really it's a case of this:A) You handle 75% of the fighter archetypes in a so-so manner with generic archetypes and fail on the other 25%.ORB) You pick 5-6 archetypes and do them great and do the other 100 fighter archtypes later sometime maybe.Where you stand is based on we 5-6 archetype the design team would choose.If they pick &quot;Sharpshooter&quot; &quot;Cavalier&quot; &quot;Duelist&quot; &quot;Defender&quot; &quot;Eldritch Knight&quot; &quot;Heavy Weapon Master&quot; and &quot;Tempest&quot;......and you just want a sword and board knight with High Str and Con... You are fine with either but prefer B....and you want a polearm master with High Str and Dex... You are fine with either but prefer A.... and you want a trident and net unarmored gladiator with High Str and Cha... You hate both option but there's a chance with B and enough lobbying you can get your retiarius quicker.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 6675263, member: 63508"] I liked Weaponmaster better. I'd go Champion -> Warrior Battlemaster -> Weaponmaster The fighter can function as a defender with the protection fighting style. They do it better with feat and even better with the marking variant. It's only healer, leader, controller, and blaster they can't do. But there's no nonmagical version of any of those in 5e. There's more than a few. The flaw of making the fighter [B][U]very vanilla and very generic[/U][/B] is that you spread it's focus. By doing that you handle everything at a poorer quality. The only way to counter it is to actively search out the gaps. And Mearls said they spent so much time trying to make those subclasses, they didn't notice a lot of other things in the fight. Really it's a case of this: [FONT=Georgia]A) You handle 75% of the fighter archetypes in a so-so manner with generic archetypes and fail on the other 25%.[/FONT] OR [FONT=Georgia]B) You pick 5-6 archetypes and do them great and do the other 100 fighter archtypes later sometime maybe.[/FONT] Where you stand is based on we 5-6 archetype the design team would choose. If they pick "Sharpshooter" "Cavalier" "Duelist" "Defender" "Eldritch Knight" "Heavy Weapon Master" and "Tempest"... ...and you just want a sword and board knight with High Str and Con... You are fine with either but prefer B. ...and you want a polearm master with High Str and Dex... You are fine with either but prefer A. ... and you want a trident and net unarmored gladiator with High Str and Cha... You hate both option but there's a chance with B and enough lobbying you can get your retiarius quicker. [/QUOTE]

Verification