Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7058923" data-attributes="member: 996">It doesn't exactly help with 3.5-style Multi-Classing, either.&nbsp;I couldn't hurt to call back a design an neat as the 3.x fighter class, but it probably couldn't be done in a way that really delivered the same elegance and customizeability.&nbsp; Especially under 5e's 'feats are big' design rubric.&nbsp; And, of course, it'd have to be bonus feats, not ASIs, since too many of those would both get crazy, and, ironically, diminish in value.Maybe new, smaller or more detailed or flexible 'fighter bonus feats' for use with the archetype could work?&nbsp; Or feats that challenged some of the limitations 5e put on combat &amp; the action-economy in the name of fast combat?&nbsp; Or higher-impact feats (or maneuvers) with higher level preqs?&nbsp; IDK, the fighter 'chassis' still seems to limit what you can do with an archetype.I'm <s>surprised</s> disappointed they didn't make the fighter more 'in the archetypes' with a more skeletal base-class chassis, and much more extensive archetypes - considering they were trying to squeeze both the simplest-of-the-simplistic Champion, and the whole 'tactical combat depth' of the past two editions* as the BM, into the same class, as archetypes.&nbsp; It's too late to 'fix' that, so at least one 'new' martial class is called for.&nbsp; * the Battlemaster was left to cover the 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster &amp; Knight), 3.5 Warblade, 4e Warlord, and arguably, 3.5 Knight and 4e (martial-only) Ranger, as well.&nbsp; And all it could cash in to try to cover all that was Improved &amp; Superior Critical, 'Remarkable' Athlete, Survivor, and an extra fighting style.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7058923, member: 996"] It doesn't exactly help with 3.5-style Multi-Classing, either. I couldn't hurt to call back a design an neat as the 3.x fighter class, but it probably couldn't be done in a way that really delivered the same elegance and customizeability. Especially under 5e's 'feats are big' design rubric. And, of course, it'd have to be bonus feats, not ASIs, since too many of those would both get crazy, and, ironically, diminish in value. Maybe new, smaller or more detailed or flexible 'fighter bonus feats' for use with the archetype could work? Or feats that challenged some of the limitations 5e put on combat & the action-economy in the name of fast combat? Or higher-impact feats (or maneuvers) with higher level preqs? IDK, the fighter 'chassis' still seems to limit what you can do with an archetype. I'm [s]surprised[/s] disappointed they didn't make the fighter more 'in the archetypes' with a more skeletal base-class chassis, and much more extensive archetypes - considering they were trying to squeeze both the simplest-of-the-simplistic Champion, and the whole 'tactical combat depth' of the past two editions* as the BM, into the same class, as archetypes. It's too late to 'fix' that, so [i]at least[/i] one 'new' martial class is called for. * the Battlemaster was left to cover the 4e Fighter (Weaponmaster & Knight), 3.5 Warblade, 4e Warlord, and arguably, 3.5 Knight and 4e (martial-only) Ranger, as well. And all it could cash in to try to cover all that was Improved & Superior Critical, 'Remarkable' Athlete, Survivor, and an extra fighting style. [/QUOTE]

Verification