Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrozenNorth" data-source="post: 7923823" data-attributes="member: 7020832">Ah, I understand now.&nbsp; I don't consider that &quot;mush&quot; though, I consider that &quot;good game design&quot;.If I want my character's archetype to be a swashbuckler, I can be:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Dex-based Battlemaster Fighter;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Swashbuckler Rogue;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Valor Bard or a Swords Bard; or even</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Kensei monk; or</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Pact of the Blade Warlock.</li>
</ul>This is a good thing.&nbsp; If I want the character to be tankier, I would go with the Fighter.&nbsp; Higher damage? Rogue.&nbsp; Want to add some magic? Bard or Warlock.&nbsp; More options from the player side are a feature, not a bug.&nbsp; Creative players are happy players and unorthodox characters are interesting characters.Best part about this?&nbsp; Less decision paralysis.&nbsp; A new player who wants to be a Swashbuckler isn't confronted with a ton of hard choices: he chooses Swashbuckler Rogue (it's right in the name!).&nbsp; A more experienced player isn't bored playing their 10th Swashbuckler Rogue because he can build the archetype different ways and they play differently on the table. From the DM side?&nbsp; The core of the character is the same: a Dex-based, one-handed finesse swordfighter with high Charisma who is probably trained mostly in Cha-skills.&nbsp; The different versions of the character have different capabilities, but none of these capabilities break the game.Plus, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.&nbsp; Want to throw your players a curveball ?&nbsp; Their highborn antagonist begins to rage on the second round of the battle.&nbsp; The pirate casts water-breathing and stabs at them from underwater.&nbsp; The elf runs UP a tree and starts shooting arrows at them.What is more, enforcing narrow character archetypes doesn't help those classes with niche identities, it hurts them.Let's take the Barbarian.&nbsp; It has a pretty niche identity described by others in this thread.&nbsp; A greatsword Fighter with the Outlander background replicates that identity, and fits 100% in the existing Fighter identity.&nbsp;&nbsp; So the Fighter is absorbing part of the Barbarian's niche, and the Barbarian can't do anything about it because his archetype is so narrow.&nbsp; Sucks to be him.Most of the &quot;narrower&quot; archetypes are in the same boat.&nbsp; Ranger?&nbsp; Scout Rogue with Outlander background (hell, even regular Rogue with Outlander background).&nbsp; Paladin?&nbsp; Fighter with Acolyte background (and maybe Magic Initiate (cleric)).&nbsp; Monk? Fighter with Hermit background (and Tavern brawler feat).If a particular character doesn't fit the tone of the campaign, that is an issue, but this is a hobby that rewards people's imagination.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrozenNorth, post: 7923823, member: 7020832"] Ah, I understand now. I don't consider that "mush" though, I consider that "good game design". If I want my character's archetype to be a swashbuckler, I can be: [LIST] [*]A Dex-based Battlemaster Fighter; [*]A Swashbuckler Rogue; [*]A Valor Bard or a Swords Bard; or even [*]A Kensei monk; or [*]A Pact of the Blade Warlock. [/LIST] This is a good thing. If I want the character to be tankier, I would go with the Fighter. Higher damage? Rogue. Want to add some magic? Bard or Warlock. More options from the player side are a feature, not a bug. Creative players are happy players and unorthodox characters are interesting characters. Best part about this? Less decision paralysis. A new player who wants to be a Swashbuckler isn't confronted with a ton of hard choices: he chooses Swashbuckler Rogue (it's right in the name!). A more experienced player isn't bored playing their 10th Swashbuckler Rogue because he can build the archetype different ways and they play differently on the table. From the DM side? The core of the character is the same: a Dex-based, one-handed finesse swordfighter with high Charisma who is probably trained mostly in Cha-skills. The different versions of the character have different capabilities, but none of these capabilities break the game. Plus, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Want to throw your players a curveball ? Their highborn antagonist begins to rage on the second round of the battle. The pirate casts water-breathing and stabs at them from underwater. The elf runs UP a tree and starts shooting arrows at them. What is more, enforcing narrow character archetypes doesn't help those classes with niche identities, it hurts them. Let's take the Barbarian. It has a pretty niche identity described by others in this thread. A greatsword Fighter with the Outlander background replicates that identity, [I]and[/I] fits 100% in the existing Fighter identity. So the Fighter is absorbing part of the Barbarian's niche, and the Barbarian can't do anything about it because his archetype is so narrow. Sucks to be him. Most of the "narrower" archetypes are in the same boat. Ranger? Scout Rogue with Outlander background (hell, even regular Rogue with Outlander background). Paladin? Fighter with Acolyte background (and maybe Magic Initiate (cleric)). Monk? Fighter with Hermit background (and Tavern brawler feat). If a particular character doesn't fit the tone of the campaign, that is an issue, but this is a hobby that rewards people's imagination. [/QUOTE]

Verification