Talk:Shieldbearer (5e Class)

Ok, so I just have to ask: what is it that makes this idea so thematically unique, that it needs a whole standalone class to represent it? Much of this is a rehashing of the fighter with some bells and whistles. But the fighter class already has bells and whistles! They're called archetypes. This concept would be better represented as an archetype for the fighter, for how little new it brings to the table. --Kydo (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2017 (MDT)

Looking to restore an older version of this page that has been constructively edited by Kydo and other users, but not entirely abridged as its most recent form had been. When I originally posted in this talk, I hadn't been aware how different this page was as to when I'd left it. I appreciate the edits of users such as Kydo and others who helped streamline the build to something approachable for 5e. Will attempt to respond to questions of balance in previous, enlightening concerns.

Dominator046 13:04, 21 October 2017 (MDT)

"Gives both of the best saves, rather than one physical and one mental as is the trend in 5e." --Kydo

This has been changed, and quite well by the lovely people here. I also reduced the hit-dice to see if that makes things more approachable.

"Several features are essentially hybridized fighting styles, so you don't have to choose. " --Kydo

This may be an integral issue. Most of why I built this class was my dissatisfaction with how Fighter played; not necessarily how it was balanced, but how its mechanics felt. This is meant to be an alternative, hopefully on a similar level, but if necessary than maybe underpowered. Though I'm told most Fighters end up rather weak until late game with top-notch armor.

"Some of the wording is so clumsy, it could be interpreted to do very strange things. Much of this depends on balance by obfuscation; it refers to properties that either don't make sense or don't exist. For example, how do you determine what the size class of a spell effect is?" --Kydo

While having my writing called clumsy makes it feel as though I've chugged Bone-Hurting Juice, I understand what you mean. I think the various editors here have moved to clean that up a good bit, and I've tried to make some changes with that myself. If you could point out anything particularly glaring, it would help me a great deal.

"This class is also written with the trappings of 3.5e, using that game's traditions and terminology, such as "spot check", which did not reappear in 5e." --Kydo

A lot of wonderful people here have helped make this no longer an issue. I was fairly new to 5e, and so when writing all of this, a lot of my language and playstyle defaulted.

"Immutable makes no sense. I would just replace it with advantage." --Anonymous.

I don't know that I agree, and this post originally came off as inflammatory to me at first; but that might just be the anonymity. I think giving someone advantage in these situations is more ambiguous than treating them a size larger. I also think it's far more effective than this is supposed to be. Advantage would make it more likely against all things big and scary, and utterly stomp little guys before they get a chance to try. Size modifier makes it better against things your size and smaller, using existing mechanics. I suppose you could double up both mechanics, and have advantage on things one-size larger than you and smaller; but that also sounds much more effective than I intend. It might be more detailed, but I feel its both more realistic, and also more friendly for certain encounters. Shields help dissipate force. Think riot shields. That being the case, if this is unfriendly to play, and more powerful than I think, I'd be more than willing to change it.

"What is it that makes this idea so thematically unique, that it needs a whole standalone class to represent it? " --Kydo

Not much, thematically. If only a bit of low-fantasy, Historical European Martial Arts, and history flavor. Mechanically, just a little bit. I found the fighter class to not be particularly enjoyable, regardless of how effective or not it is. I wanted something different, something that suited my roleplay. So, I made this.

"This concept would be better represented as an archetype for the fighter, for how little new it brings to the table." --Kydo

This may be true, though I feel it would take a significant amount of effort to restructure the bones of the Fighter class to eliminate things things that I just wouldn't want as artifacts, to get more of the things I did. I mean, it might be easy to go at it with half-measures for the general feel of the class, and nix the mechanics. But those mechanics are something I sort of wanted. Something that felt mechanically different, with flavor that was quite similar to the fighter, though different in its own minutia. If you could help me outline a system where I could do this, perhaps. I would be interested in seeing what could be done.

Dominator046 14:10, 21 October 2017 (MDT)