Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6677404" data-attributes="member: 22779">I think that's the issue in a nutshell.&nbsp; It's not that there are three broad interpretations of fighter.&nbsp; There are two - magic fighter and non-magic fighter.&nbsp; Flavour wise, nothing distinguishes a champion from a battlemaster.&nbsp; You can take pretty much any fighter archetype and apply champion or battlemaster to it, and there's no difference.&nbsp; The same is not true for rogues.&nbsp; I would not expect a pickpocket thief to have an assassin sub-class.&nbsp; Not that you can't do that, just that I wouldn't expect it.OTOH, if I make a Solamnic Knight (to pick an example that I happen to be playing right now), which kind of fighter fits?&nbsp; We used a Champion with a few changes to abilities to make a Solamnic Knight.&nbsp; You could have just as easily used a Battlemaster and there would not have been any particular difference, other than strictly mechanical ones.I do agree with the idea of broad fighter sub-classes.&nbsp; I think that's a good idea.&nbsp; You don't need to drill down too far.&nbsp; But, I also think there is very much room for two or three more subclasses which might fit specific archetypes better than Champion or Battlemaster.&nbsp; Solamnic Knight (or Samurai, or Knight or whatever name you want to give mounted heavy armored individual with social skills and social status) is a good example of this.&nbsp; A Leader of Men subclass is needed as well, IMO, to cover the Captain/Boss/Sergeant archetype, thus the whole &quot;Warlording the Fighter&quot; thread going on right now.&nbsp; Possibly an subclass for covering the &quot;Duelist&quot; &quot;Musketeer&quot; &quot;Gentleman warrior&quot; archetype as well.Note, I realize that you CAN do these things with the existing subclasses, but, they don't fit exactly right.&nbsp; A new subclass covering these areas would fit better than existing subclasses.&nbsp; Not that you can't do it, but, that you can do it better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6677404, member: 22779"] I think that's the issue in a nutshell. It's not that there are three broad interpretations of fighter. There are two - magic fighter and non-magic fighter. Flavour wise, nothing distinguishes a champion from a battlemaster. You can take pretty much any fighter archetype and apply champion or battlemaster to it, and there's no difference. The same is not true for rogues. I would not expect a pickpocket thief to have an assassin sub-class. Not that you can't do that, just that I wouldn't expect it. OTOH, if I make a Solamnic Knight (to pick an example that I happen to be playing right now), which kind of fighter fits? We used a Champion with a few changes to abilities to make a Solamnic Knight. You could have just as easily used a Battlemaster and there would not have been any particular difference, other than strictly mechanical ones. I do agree with the idea of broad fighter sub-classes. I think that's a good idea. You don't need to drill down too far. But, I also think there is very much room for two or three more subclasses which might fit specific archetypes better than Champion or Battlemaster. Solamnic Knight (or Samurai, or Knight or whatever name you want to give mounted heavy armored individual with social skills and social status) is a good example of this. A Leader of Men subclass is needed as well, IMO, to cover the Captain/Boss/Sergeant archetype, thus the whole "Warlording the Fighter" thread going on right now. Possibly an subclass for covering the "Duelist" "Musketeer" "Gentleman warrior" archetype as well. Note, I realize that you CAN do these things with the existing subclasses, but, they don't fit exactly right. A new subclass covering these areas would fit [i]better[/i] than existing subclasses. Not that you can't do it, but, that you can do it better. [/QUOTE]

Verification