Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6677303" data-attributes="member: 20323">It's a question of sufficient coverage of archetypes and play-styles. Does 8 sub-classes give you sufficient coverage for a Wizard? Maybe you feel it's far too many, or maybe you feel it's missing a "generalist scholar type"? EDIT: As an aside, I would agree that wizard needs a "scholarly tradition" for a generalist, and that should be in the Basic D&D rules. In fact, I homebrewed one and it's in the Class Database here on ENWorld.Similarly, the question becomes: How many sub-classes gives sufficient coverage for a Fighter in terms of archetypes and play-styles?I love playing fighters, but the fighter sub-classes don't capture my imagination. Champion is underwhelming both narratively (what *is* a champion?) and mechanically. "Battle master" seems like something every fighter should be, right? He is a master of battle, yeah no sh&t! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Eldritch Knight is great for corner-case scenarios, but not a standard fighter.On the other hand, the wizard sub-classes do capture my imagination because they're clearly *about* something. An evoker is thematically different from an illusionist or an esoteric transmuter, and not just mechanically different. Evokers tend to be showy war mages. Illusionists tend to be crafty and sneaky. Transmuters tend to be alchemical philosophers.What I'm trying to illustrate is that the rules of the Fighter class do not support character identity. Rather, it is up to the player's role-playing and selection of "peripherals" (background, skills, feats, equipment, roleplaying traits) to provide their fighter PC with identity.OTOH, while these "peripherals" are essential to every other character's identity as well, a wizard character gets an extra layer of identity from their choice of sub-class. Evokers tend to be showy war mages. Illusionists tend to be crafty and sneaky. Transmuters tend to be alchemical philosophers. And certain sub-class features support those generalizations. This is great for new players, and even old players interested in "playing to type." At the same time, the sub-class features don't lock you into playing the philosopher Transmuter or sneaky Illusionist -- player who prefer to play out-of-the-box characters can still play an madcap explosive wielding gnomish Transmuter or a master of fear and dreams Illusionist.When we look back to older iterations of the fighter, there WERE rules supporting identity in the form of followers & strongholds. They didn't lock step you into a certain character type besides, broadly, a "leader of men."So what I'm advocating for is Fighter sub-classes that thematically add something just like wizard sub-classes thematically add something to the character. YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification