Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6677375" data-attributes="member: 20323">Yep, that's the point that myself and others are trying to illustrate.Sorcerers and Warlocks go very far in the thematic direction, and so they merit more sub-class coverage. Especially Sorcerer.You have Wizards and Clerics with tons of sub-classes with a moderate amount of baked-in flavor.You have Rogues, who have very clear archetypes with implications beyond mechanics: assassin, thief, and trickster.Even Barbarians have a thematic distinction between berserkers &amp; animal totem followers.The Fighter distinction (leaving aside Eldritch Knight, which I have no problem with) between Champion &amp; Battle Master is a purely mechanical one.No other class in the PHB has sub-classes that are a purely mechanical distinction.Compare: If the Champion text felt anemic and directionless to you, compared to the Thief, that's because it is!So I guess the question that leaves me with: Is there something UNIQUE about Fighters that mandates their sub-class design to being strictly mechanical?Sounds like some folks are arguing &quot;Yes, because there are so many possible types of fighters, we can't have thematic sub-classes for them all! But we can have thematic sub-classes for all wizards types, no problem.&quot;To which I say: Who-the-what?? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 6677375, member: 20323"] Yep, that's the point that myself and others are trying to illustrate. Sorcerers and Warlocks go very far in the thematic direction, and so they merit more sub-class coverage. Especially Sorcerer. You have Wizards and Clerics with tons of sub-classes with a moderate amount of baked-in flavor. You have Rogues, who have very clear archetypes with implications beyond mechanics: assassin, thief, and trickster. Even Barbarians have a thematic distinction between berserkers & animal totem followers. The Fighter distinction (leaving aside Eldritch Knight, which I have no problem with) between Champion & Battle Master is a purely mechanical one. No other class in the PHB has sub-classes that are a purely mechanical distinction. Compare: If the Champion text felt anemic and directionless to you, compared to the Thief, that's because it is! So I guess the question that leaves me with: Is there something UNIQUE about Fighters that mandates their sub-class design to being strictly mechanical? Sounds like some folks are arguing "Yes, because there are so many possible types of fighters, we can't have thematic sub-classes for them all! But we can have thematic sub-classes for all wizards types, no problem." To which I say: Who-the-what?? :erm: [/QUOTE]

Verification