BM is technically adept, its not physically better than EK, or brawler. Champion criticals more, They are stronger, (athletics buff) faster (initiative buff), and tougher(survivor)
"A Champion focuses on the development of martial prowess in a relentless pursuit of victory. Champions combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows, withstand peril, and garner glory. Whether in athletic contests or bloody battle, Champions strive for the crown of the victor."
literally physical excellence is the focus.
BM's theme is about planning, strategy, study,
"Battle Masters are students of the art of battle, learning martial techniques passed down through generations. The most accomplished Battle Masters are well-rounded figures who combine their carefully honed combat skills with academic study in the fields of history, theory, and the arts."
BM isnt really coded as the most physical incarnation of fighter. In fact they are coded as being the mental focused fighter.
There is no such thing as collective imagination, stop saying that. We each imagine things individually which is why we use descriptions to align our imaginations. The Archetype of an Eldritch Knight is a fighter with magic. That archetype is only a D&D archetype. If you told that to someone who had no knowledge of D&D they might think Eldritch means Chuthulu. Also you are assuming a Fighter is melee and that is not true. Because your assumption is not true your pairing is also not perfect. Arcane Archer is a horrible subclass for the PHB as it is currently written. You talked about players doing what they want with the mechanically corset of the class, but they literally can’t with the AA. It allows 0 flexibility. It is a supplement only class as it is currently written. It is the only fighter that is hard locked into a single weapon type. If they expanded it to all ranged weapons it’s still bad because every other fighter could still do what it does, as they aren’t limited to melee. The best to complete the 4 is pairings is Rune Knight it offers a unique play style and could cover pairings Champion simple no magic/Battle Master complex, Eldritch Knight spell slot magic/Rune Knight no spell slot magic. All four of those can be used melee or ranged and cover multiple styles of play. I originally thought Cavalier, but was reminded they have a unnecessary Str requirement. If they keep up these pairings in supplements a book with Cavalier and Arcane Archer would be possible. As one forced you to be Str and melee and the other forces you to be Dex with a bow.
Well, don't be angry. Not worth it. Beyond that, there are several things you don't understand.
The first thing is that the Eldritch Knight archetype is not "Eldritch Knight". That is simply a name. It could be called for example "Spellblade", "Arcane Warrior", "Magic Knight", "Gish", "Swordsage", etc. They all aim at the same concept, and want to represent the same archetype: A melee warrior who uses arcane magic. Then one name or another could be used to focus on a more specific archetype. For example, if that magic-using melee warrior has an agile and flashy fighting style, he could be called "Spelldancer". Or if he imbues his weapon with elemental magic, it could be called "Elemental Blade". Etc. "Eldritch Knight" is just a name.
The second thing is that this archetype does not respond only to D&D. There are numerous examples in literature, cinema, video games, etc. Who belong to this character archetype. For example, in The Stormlight Archive many Surgebinders can fall into this archetype. Anomander Rake in Malaz is another great example. In the Well of time Rand al'Thor is both: blademaster and powerful with the one power. Even Galdalf, especially the Gandalf of the movies, falls into this archetype.
Third, there is obviously a collective imagination. Do you think your imagination comes from nothing? It comes from books you've read, games you've played, movies you've seen, etc. And these books, games and movies, in turn, draw from other sources. That is what creates a collective, shared imagination. Because ultimately we all drink from the same sources. Nothing you think or imagine is original. Forget that. Everything comes from somewhere. If it weren't like that, we wouldn't even be able to understand each other. If I say "holy warrior," and you don't understand what I mean, I would have to explain clearly what I mean. But just by reading "holy warrior" you have already understood the type of character I am referring to, right? And that's because you've associated the archetype with many characters you know who fall into that category. That is the collective imagination, and it has been widely studied by people like Carl Jung, Edgar Morin, Peirce, Joseph Campbell and, ultimately, any thinker who has dedicated himself to semiotics, comparative mythology or analytical psychology. In fact, an archetype can only exist if there is a collective imagination. Because the archetype in itself does not mean anything, but rather it is the ultimate model, the blue print, or exemplary pattern from which other ideas or concepts are derived. The oldest thinker we know who talks about this, at least whose writings have come down to us, is Plato. And from there the list is endless. Denying the existence of a collective imagination is like denying that water is wet.
There is no such thing as collective imagination, stop saying that. We each imagine things individually which is why we use descriptions to align our imaginations. The Archetype of an Eldritch Knight is a fighter with magic. That archetype is only a D&D archetype. If you told that to someone who had no knowledge of D&D they might think Eldritch means Chuthulu. Also you are assuming a Fighter is melee and that is not true. Because your assumption is not true your pairing is also not perfect. Arcane Archer is a horrible subclass for the PHB as it is currently written. You talked about players doing what they want with the mechanically corset of the class, but they literally can’t with the AA. It allows 0 flexibility. It is a supplement only class as it is currently written. It is the only fighter that is hard locked into a single weapon type. If they expanded it to all ranged weapons it’s still bad because every other fighter could still do what it does, as they aren’t limited to melee. The best to complete the 4 is pairings is Rune Knight it offers a unique play style and could cover pairings Champion simple no magic/Battle Master complex, Eldritch Knight spell slot magic/Rune Knight no spell slot magic. All four of those can be used melee or ranged and cover multiple styles of play. I originally thought Cavalier, but was reminded they have a unnecessary Str requirement. If they keep up these pairings in supplements a book with Cavalier and Arcane Archer would be possible. As one forced you to be Str and melee and the other forces you to be Dex with a bow.
Well, don't be angry. Not worth it. Beyond that, there are several things you don't understand.
The first thing is that the Eldritch Knight archetype is not "Eldritch Knight". That is simply a name. It could be called for example "Spellblade", "Arcane Warrior", "Magic Knight", "Gish", "Swordsage", etc. They all aim at the same concept, and want to represent the same archetype: A melee warrior who uses arcane magic. Then one name or another could be used to focus on a more specific archetype. For example, if that magic-using melee warrior has an agile and flashy fighting style, he could be called "Spelldancer". Or if he imbues his weapon with elemental magic, it could be called "Elemental Blade". Etc. "Eldritch Knight" is just a name.
The second thing is that this archetype does not respond only to D&D. There are numerous examples in literature, cinema, video games, etc. Who belong to this character archetype. For example, in The Stormlight Archive many Surgebinders can fall into this archetype. Anomander Rake in Malaz is another great example. In the Well of time Rand al'Thor is both: blademaster and powerful with the one power. Even Galdalf, especially the Gandalf of the movies, falls into this archetype.
Third, there is obviously a collective imagination. Do you think your imagination comes from nothing? It comes from books you've read, games you've played, movies you've seen, etc. And these books, games and movies, in turn, draw from other sources. That is what creates a collective, shared imagination. Because ultimately we all drink from the same sources. Nothing you think or imagine is original. Forget that. Everything comes from somewhere. If it weren't like that, we wouldn't even be able to understand each other. If I say "holy warrior," and you don't understand what I mean, I would have to explain clearly what I mean. But just by reading "holy warrior" you have already understood the type of character I am referring to, right? And that's because you've associated the archetype with many characters you know who fall into that category. That is the collective imagination, and it has been widely studied by people like Carl Jung, Edgar Morin, Peirce, Joseph Campbell and, ultimately, any thinker who has dedicated himself to semiotics, comparative mythology or analytical psychology. In fact, an archetype can only exist if there is a collective imagination. Because the archetype in itself does not mean anything, but rather it is the ultimate model, the blue print, or exemplary pattern from which other ideas or concepts are derived. The oldest thinker we know who talks about this, at least whose writings have come down to us, is Plato. And from there the list is endless. Denying the existence of a collective imagination is like denying that water is wet.
eldritch knight is specifically not a sword Saint/spellblade/etc though. paladin is a sword Saint, bladesinger is spell blade. It goes out of its way to avoid being the concept of a magical melee.
you believe this because your concept of fighter is thats is primarily melee. Its not, it goes out of its way not to be defined as a melee. Its is Master of battle, and war. Its primary attribute isnt strength, its dexterity or strength, its abilities talk about weapon attacks, not melee attacks. it has martial weapon mastery in vanilla 5e, not melee mastery. It can start with a crossbow. It can use all weapons, and its literally the best martial ranged class in the game. Ranger needs magic to catch up to it.
eldritch knight, read the description, look at the mechanics, its not trying to be the melee/mage concept. its trying to be the magic soldier concept.
you believe this because your concept of fighter is thats is primarily melee.
No. I have played a battlemaster with crossbow. But whether I play one thing or another has nothing to do with the archetype or concept a subclass points to.
The second thing is that this archetype does not respond only to D&D. There are numerous examples in literature, cinema, video games, etc. Who belong to this character archetype. For example, in The Stormlight Archive many Surgebinders can fall into this archetype. Anomander Rake in Malaz is another great example. In the Well of time Rand al'Thor is both: blademaster and powerful with the one power. Even Galdalf, especially the Gandalf of the movies, falls into this archetype.
If we're limiting ourselves to cinematic archetypes we just delete the AA completely. 90% of cinematic warriors are melee fighters because archery looks lousy on the screen (and when you do see it, there's often Legolas stuff where people are using a bow... in melee). We won't even talk about the stage, since bows are essentially unusable there.
you believe this because your concept of fighter is thats is primarily melee.
No. I have played a battlemaster with crossbow. But whether I play one thing or another has nothing to do with the archetype or concept a subclass points to.
you aren't basing your theory of what archetype fighter or eldritch knight is trying to represent on anything. You just keep saying it as if it is self evident, its not.
Fighter is intentionally designed as being excellent at all weapons and martial styles. Its not coded as melee or trying to represent a melee archetype.
read the phb lore/archetype description, or the subclass descriptions. Its literally not trying be melee centric.
"
Well-Rounded Specialists
Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."
The fighter isnt trying to be a swordsman. Its a much more general concept/archetype. Rambo would be a fighter, fighter can use all weapons and specialize in all weapons (without a subclass) The eldritch knight is not trying to represent the melee mage, it has that possibility, but its not its focus, archetype wise, mechanics wise, or narrative wise
The second thing is that this archetype does not respond only to D&D. There are numerous examples in literature, cinema, video games, etc. Who belong to this character archetype. For example, in The Stormlight Archive many Surgebinders can fall into this archetype. Anomander Rake in Malaz is another great example. In the Well of time Rand al'Thor is both: blademaster and powerful with the one power. Even Galdalf, especially the Gandalf of the movies, falls into this archetype.
If we're limiting ourselves to cinematic archetypes we just delete the AA completely. 90% of cinematic warriors are melee fighters because archery looks lousy on the screen (and when you do see it, there's often Legolas stuff where people are using a bow... in melee).
true to an extent, but I'd say there are a lot of cinematic archetype fighters, most action movie heroes are the fighter concept, rambo is a fighter, 70% of Schwarzenegger movies (minus Conan and Junior). its way more common with Guns over bows though (in fiction/movies)
basically, soldier/merc/general warrior is fighter.
There is no such thing as collective imagination, stop saying that. We each imagine things individually which is why we use descriptions to align our imaginations. The Archetype of an Eldritch Knight is a fighter with magic. That archetype is only a D&D archetype. If you told that to someone who had no knowledge of D&D they might think Eldritch means Chuthulu. Also you are assuming a Fighter is melee and that is not true. Because your assumption is not true your pairing is also not perfect. Arcane Archer is a horrible subclass for the PHB as it is currently written. You talked about players doing what they want with the mechanically corset of the class, but they literally can’t with the AA. It allows 0 flexibility. It is a supplement only class as it is currently written. It is the only fighter that is hard locked into a single weapon type. If they expanded it to all ranged weapons it’s still bad because every other fighter could still do what it does, as they aren’t limited to melee. The best to complete the 4 is pairings is Rune Knight it offers a unique play style and could cover pairings Champion simple no magic/Battle Master complex, Eldritch Knight spell slot magic/Rune Knight no spell slot magic. All four of those can be used melee or ranged and cover multiple styles of play. I originally thought Cavalier, but was reminded they have a unnecessary Str requirement. If they keep up these pairings in supplements a book with Cavalier and Arcane Archer would be possible. As one forced you to be Str and melee and the other forces you to be Dex with a bow.
Well, don't be angry. Not worth it. Beyond that, there are several things you don't understand.
The first thing is that the Eldritch Knight archetype is not "Eldritch Knight". That is simply a name. It could be called for example "Spellblade", "Arcane Warrior", "Magic Knight", "Gish", "Swordsage", etc. They all aim at the same concept, and want to represent the same archetype: A melee warrior who uses arcane magic. Then one name or another could be used to focus on a more specific archetype. For example, if that magic-using melee warrior has an agile and flashy fighting style, he could be called "Spelldancer". Or if he imbues his weapon with elemental magic, it could be called "Elemental Blade". Etc. "Eldritch Knight" is just a name.
The second thing is that this archetype does not respond only to D&D. There are numerous examples in literature, cinema, video games, etc. Who belong to this character archetype. For example, in The Stormlight Archive many Surgebinders can fall into this archetype. Anomander Rake in Malaz is another great example. In the Well of time Rand al'Thor is both: blademaster and powerful with the one power. Even Galdalf, especially the Gandalf of the movies, falls into this archetype.
Third, there is obviously a collective imagination. Do you think your imagination comes from nothing? It comes from books you've read, games you've played, movies you've seen, etc. And these books, games and movies, in turn, draw from other sources. That is what creates a collective, shared imagination. Because ultimately we all drink from the same sources. Nothing you think or imagine is original. Forget that. Everything comes from somewhere. If it weren't like that, we wouldn't even be able to understand each other. If I say "holy warrior," and you don't understand what I mean, I would have to explain clearly what I mean. But just by reading "holy warrior" you have already understood the type of character I am referring to, right? And that's because you've associated the archetype with many characters you know who fall into that category. That is the collective imagination, and it has been widely studied by people like Carl Jung, Edgar Morin, Peirce, Joseph Campbell and, ultimately, any thinker who has dedicated himself to semiotics, comparative mythology or analytical psychology. In fact, an archetype can only exist if there is a collective imagination. Because the archetype in itself does not mean anything, but rather it is the ultimate model, the blue print, or exemplary pattern from which other ideas or concepts are derived. The oldest thinker we know who talks about this, at least whose writings have come down to us, is Plato. And from there the list is endless. Denying the existence of a collective imagination is like denying that water is wet.
I do understand that, what you clearly don’t understand is I said people who don’t know D&D would make that mistake Eldritch Knight might mean Chuthulu. It was to prove the point that there is no such thing as collective imagination. That’s not a real thing. Again there is nothing in the fighter Archetype that makes it a melee combatant. Maybe that’s what you want, but that is not the fighter. The fighter was made to cover more than just your narrow view of these melee combatant archetypes. Sorry but you can actually look up the history of the class and have evidence of this truth. Collective imagination a is not real thing. The first thing you mentioned are physical things which could inspire or spur my imagination, but there is no connection between my imagination and yours. You and I can look at the same thing, read the same book and imagine it completely differently. There are troupes, archetypes, groupings of ideas, but those are assessed after someone has written down what they imagined or shared it in some form.
true to an extent, but I'd say there are a lot of cinematic archetype fighters, most action movie heroes are the fighter concept, rambo is a fighter, 70% of Schwarzenegger movies (minus Conan and Junior). its way more common with Guns over bows though (in fiction/movies)
Guns have two advantages over arrows when it comes to cinema
Bullets are too fast and small to show up on screen so you can replace them with blanks (or for tracers, streaks of light added in postprocessing). Arrows you might actually have to deal with physical arrows on-set, which is guaranteed to be an enormous PITA.
Explosions are an adequate replacement for fight choreography.
Much the same logic applies to the arcane archer. It's a lot easier to just use fireballs/magic blasts/whatever which are added in postprocessing than to deal with arrows, and it lets you have explosions and flashy lights, so really, why would you ever want to use an archer? I suppose at that point you can just use a glowing bow of light that's firing arrows that are added in postprocessing, but I'm not convinced that's an arcane archer in the first place, that's just adding style points when casting magic missile.
Now, the benefit of melee combat is that you can have elaborate fight choreography, plus it conveniently puts your hero and villain on-screen at the same time in the same place at short ranges, which is why it persists even in the era of modern FX, but bows... they exist, but they're rarely a big deal.
I do understand that, what you clearly don’t understand is I said people who don’t know D&D would make that mistake Eldritch Knight might mean Chuthulu. It was to prove the point that there is no such thing as collective imagination. That’s not a real thing. Again there is nothing in the fighter Archetype that makes it a melee combatant. Maybe that’s what you want, but that is not the fighter. The fighter was made to cover more than just your narrow view of these melee combatant archetypes. Sorry but you can actually look up the history of the class and have evidence of this truth. Collective imagination a is not real thing. The first thing you mentioned are physical things which could inspire or spur my imagination, but there is no connection between my imagination and yours. You and I can look at the same thing, read the same book and imagine it completely differently. There are troupes, archetypes, groupings of ideas, but those are assessed after someone has written down what they imagined or shared it in some form.
And so you show that you don't understand it. Anyway, I'll leave it here. It's not such an important issue either. We'll see which subclass the fourth is.
What is more worrying is denying an anthropological reality such as the collective imagination. But hey, that's your problem and not mine.
I do understand that, what you clearly don’t understand is I said people who don’t know D&D would make that mistake Eldritch Knight might mean Chuthulu. It was to prove the point that there is no such thing as collective imagination. That’s not a real thing. Again there is nothing in the fighter Archetype that makes it a melee combatant. Maybe that’s what you want, but that is not the fighter. The fighter was made to cover more than just your narrow view of these melee combatant archetypes. Sorry but you can actually look up the history of the class and have evidence of this truth. Collective imagination a is not real thing. The first thing you mentioned are physical things which could inspire or spur my imagination, but there is no connection between my imagination and yours. You and I can look at the same thing, read the same book and imagine it completely differently. There are troupes, archetypes, groupings of ideas, but those are assessed after someone has written down what they imagined or shared it in some form.
And so you show that you don't understand it. Anyway, I'll leave it here. It's not such an important issue either. We'll see which subclass the fourth is.
What is more worrying is denying an anthropological reality such as the collective imagination. But hey, that's your problem and not mine.
What is more worrying is the pushing of something that isn’t real. Two people sitting at the same table will imagine things completely differently unless they are given great detail that relates to their own real world experiences. Maybe you need a better term for what you are trying to explain, but collective imagination as you tried to explain it is not a real thing. The only real “collective imaginations” are either when ideas, symbols, and images common amongst people who share those or similar experiences can align their their imagination to some degree, or when people create something new by sharing their thoughts amongst each other to form a shared fantasy. Your idea that archetypes and troupes are common amongst all people is just wrong.
I do understand that, what you clearly don’t understand is I said people who don’t know D&D would make that mistake Eldritch Knight might mean Chuthulu. It was to prove the point that there is no such thing as collective imagination. That’s not a real thing. Again there is nothing in the fighter Archetype that makes it a melee combatant. Maybe that’s what you want, but that is not the fighter. The fighter was made to cover more than just your narrow view of these melee combatant archetypes. Sorry but you can actually look up the history of the class and have evidence of this truth. Collective imagination a is not real thing. The first thing you mentioned are physical things which could inspire or spur my imagination, but there is no connection between my imagination and yours. You and I can look at the same thing, read the same book and imagine it completely differently. There are troupes, archetypes, groupings of ideas, but those are assessed after someone has written down what they imagined or shared it in some form.
And so you show that you don't understand it. Anyway, I'll leave it here. It's not such an important issue either. We'll see which subclass the fourth is.
What is more worrying is denying an anthropological reality such as the collective imagination. But hey, that's your problem and not mine.
What is more worrying is the pushing of something that isn’t real. Two people sitting at the same table will imagine things completely differently. Maybe you need a better term for what you are trying to explain, but collective imagination is not a real thing.
I half agree with your statement. In fact, this very argument is proof that you are in some way right; when Irrelevant imagines "collective imagination," they clearly imagine something different than you do when you imagine those same two words, which is proof that your conceptualization of collective imagination doesn't exist. So, you have proven your point, but in proving your point also proven that Irrelevant's point can be true simultaneously, because your point being true means Irrelevant could be imagining collective imagination in a different way, and thus arguing for a different thing than you're arguing against.
O, what a world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I edited my post and completed my explanation, so we don’t have to live in the existential reality of both our “understandings of collective imaginations” being correct. The way they originally explained it is flawed and not real. That version or understanding of “collective imagination” simply does not exist.
Collective imagination is a set of symbols, customs or memories that have specific meaning to it and common to all the people who are part of it.
That is the technical definition of the concept. To understand what we are talking about. But this is probably not the place to discuss this. What I do tell you is that denying the existence of a collective imagination is denying the existence of culture.
Collective imagination is a set of symbols, customs or memories that have specific meaning to it and common to all the people who are part of it.
While shared cultural touchpoints do exist, calling them the "collective imagination" is not standard usage. However, it doesn't particularly matter what you call it, the reality is that the character who uses both weapons and magic to fight isn't common enough to expect people to have a shared cultural understanding of what it means.
While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
You have a false dichotomy, Knight and Archer aren't antonyms, or a thematic opposing pairing. Also this whole discussion highlights that there isnt an agreed upon cultural understanding in this case, and certainly within the dnd community. Furthermore the flavor text of eldritch knight specifically says the magic is used to increase its effectiveness in range. Even if the knight never uses a bow these two classes are both about augmenting the fighters ability to do damage at a range via magic. They are far from being opposites.
the whole concept is a stretch because yall like the idea of AA as an option. Thats fine, they may do it anyway, but its not because they represent a thematic opposite or a gameplay opposite.
its not a good example of melee versus ranged, because eldritch knight doesnt strongly represent melee. Archer clearly strongly represents ranged. The idea that archer thematically represents ranged, is not a valid argument for knight representing melee. Purple doesnt represent the opposite of red, just because its not red. We got one class who is all about ranged magic, and another who is sometimes about ranged magic. These aren't opposites.
While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
It could, but I could also easily imagine it as an order of wizards bound by a code of ethics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
The problem with this argument is that it: (1) you are ignoring the Eldritch part of the name which connotes Chuthulu-esque horror or strange alien magic, not wizardry. -> Why do you ignore one half of the name and not the other half?
(2) the pop-culture depiction of a Knight is a person in full plate armour riding a horse, using a sword-and-shield or a lance-and-shield. Which in D&D is a Paladin, not a Fighter. Knights without horses are almost as frequently depicted using crossbows to defend the walls or take down enemies that have turned to run as they are with swords, and almost never are depicted using two-handed melee weapons (because a shield painted with their family coat of arms is a near universal symbol of knighthood). Again, this shows how poor of a match the D&D Fighter is to the popular depiction of a Knight.
While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
It could, but I could also easily imagine it as an order of wizards bound by a code of ethics.
I’m not saying it’s the only possibility, but if you polled a group of random people what image first comes to mind when they see the word “knight”, do you really think heavy armor with a sword/lance and shield wouldn’t be the lead by a good margin? This isn’t about absolutes, just dominant tropes and trends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BM is technically adept, its not physically better than EK, or brawler. Champion criticals more, They are stronger, (athletics buff) faster (initiative buff), and tougher(survivor)
"A Champion focuses on the development of martial prowess in a relentless pursuit of victory. Champions combine rigorous training with physical excellence to deal devastating blows, withstand peril, and garner glory. Whether in athletic contests or bloody battle, Champions strive for the crown of the victor."
literally physical excellence is the focus.
BM's theme is about planning, strategy, study,
"Battle Masters are students of the art of battle, learning martial techniques passed down through generations. The most accomplished Battle Masters are well-rounded figures who combine their carefully honed combat skills with academic study in the fields of history, theory, and the arts."
BM isnt really coded as the most physical incarnation of fighter. In fact they are coded as being the mental focused fighter.
Well, don't be angry. Not worth it. Beyond that, there are several things you don't understand.
The first thing is that the Eldritch Knight archetype is not "Eldritch Knight". That is simply a name. It could be called for example "Spellblade", "Arcane Warrior", "Magic Knight", "Gish", "Swordsage", etc. They all aim at the same concept, and want to represent the same archetype: A melee warrior who uses arcane magic. Then one name or another could be used to focus on a more specific archetype. For example, if that magic-using melee warrior has an agile and flashy fighting style, he could be called "Spelldancer". Or if he imbues his weapon with elemental magic, it could be called "Elemental Blade". Etc. "Eldritch Knight" is just a name.
The second thing is that this archetype does not respond only to D&D. There are numerous examples in literature, cinema, video games, etc. Who belong to this character archetype. For example, in The Stormlight Archive many Surgebinders can fall into this archetype. Anomander Rake in Malaz is another great example. In the Well of time Rand al'Thor is both: blademaster and powerful with the one power. Even Galdalf, especially the Gandalf of the movies, falls into this archetype.
Third, there is obviously a collective imagination. Do you think your imagination comes from nothing? It comes from books you've read, games you've played, movies you've seen, etc. And these books, games and movies, in turn, draw from other sources. That is what creates a collective, shared imagination. Because ultimately we all drink from the same sources. Nothing you think or imagine is original. Forget that. Everything comes from somewhere. If it weren't like that, we wouldn't even be able to understand each other. If I say "holy warrior," and you don't understand what I mean, I would have to explain clearly what I mean. But just by reading "holy warrior" you have already understood the type of character I am referring to, right? And that's because you've associated the archetype with many characters you know who fall into that category. That is the collective imagination, and it has been widely studied by people like Carl Jung, Edgar Morin, Peirce, Joseph Campbell and, ultimately, any thinker who has dedicated himself to semiotics, comparative mythology or analytical psychology. In fact, an archetype can only exist if there is a collective imagination. Because the archetype in itself does not mean anything, but rather it is the ultimate model, the blue print, or exemplary pattern from which other ideas or concepts are derived. The oldest thinker we know who talks about this, at least whose writings have come down to us, is Plato. And from there the list is endless. Denying the existence of a collective imagination is like denying that water is wet.
eldritch knight is specifically not a sword Saint/spellblade/etc though. paladin is a sword Saint, bladesinger is spell blade. It goes out of its way to avoid being the concept of a magical melee.
you believe this because your concept of fighter is thats is primarily melee. Its not, it goes out of its way not to be defined as a melee. Its is Master of battle, and war. Its primary attribute isnt strength, its dexterity or strength, its abilities talk about weapon attacks, not melee attacks. it has martial weapon mastery in vanilla 5e, not melee mastery. It can start with a crossbow. It can use all weapons, and its literally the best martial ranged class in the game. Ranger needs magic to catch up to it.
eldritch knight, read the description, look at the mechanics, its not trying to be the melee/mage concept. its trying to be the magic soldier concept.
No. I have played a battlemaster with crossbow. But whether I play one thing or another has nothing to do with the archetype or concept a subclass points to.
If we're limiting ourselves to cinematic archetypes we just delete the AA completely. 90% of cinematic warriors are melee fighters because archery looks lousy on the screen (and when you do see it, there's often Legolas stuff where people are using a bow... in melee). We won't even talk about the stage, since bows are essentially unusable there.
you aren't basing your theory of what archetype fighter or eldritch knight is trying to represent on anything. You just keep saying it as if it is self evident, its not.
Fighter is intentionally designed as being excellent at all weapons and martial styles. Its not coded as melee or trying to represent a melee archetype.
read the phb lore/archetype description, or the subclass descriptions. Its literally not trying be melee centric.
"
Well-Rounded Specialists
Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."
The fighter isnt trying to be a swordsman. Its a much more general concept/archetype. Rambo would be a fighter, fighter can use all weapons and specialize in all weapons (without a subclass) The eldritch knight is not trying to represent the melee mage, it has that possibility, but its not its focus, archetype wise, mechanics wise, or narrative wise
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/fighter#:~:text=Fighters learn the basics of,and every form of armor.
true to an extent, but I'd say there are a lot of cinematic archetype fighters, most action movie heroes are the fighter concept, rambo is a fighter, 70% of Schwarzenegger movies (minus Conan and Junior). its way more common with Guns over bows though (in fiction/movies)
basically, soldier/merc/general warrior is fighter.
I do understand that, what you clearly don’t understand is I said people who don’t know D&D would make that mistake Eldritch Knight might mean Chuthulu. It was to prove the point that there is no such thing as collective imagination. That’s not a real thing. Again there is nothing in the fighter Archetype that makes it a melee combatant. Maybe that’s what you want, but that is not the fighter. The fighter was made to cover more than just your narrow view of these melee combatant archetypes. Sorry but you can actually look up the history of the class and have evidence of this truth.
Collective imagination a is not real thing. The first thing you mentioned are physical things which could inspire or spur my imagination, but there is no connection between my imagination and yours. You and I can look at the same thing, read the same book and imagine it completely differently. There are troupes, archetypes, groupings of ideas, but those are assessed after someone has written down what they imagined or shared it in some form.
Guns have two advantages over arrows when it comes to cinema
Much the same logic applies to the arcane archer. It's a lot easier to just use fireballs/magic blasts/whatever which are added in postprocessing than to deal with arrows, and it lets you have explosions and flashy lights, so really, why would you ever want to use an archer? I suppose at that point you can just use a glowing bow of light that's firing arrows that are added in postprocessing, but I'm not convinced that's an arcane archer in the first place, that's just adding style points when casting magic missile.
Now, the benefit of melee combat is that you can have elaborate fight choreography, plus it conveniently puts your hero and villain on-screen at the same time in the same place at short ranges, which is why it persists even in the era of modern FX, but bows... they exist, but they're rarely a big deal.
And so you show that you don't understand it. Anyway, I'll leave it here. It's not such an important issue either. We'll see which subclass the fourth is.
What is more worrying is denying an anthropological reality such as the collective imagination. But hey, that's your problem and not mine.
What is more worrying is the pushing of something that isn’t real. Two people sitting at the same table will imagine things completely differently unless they are given great detail that relates to their own real world experiences. Maybe you need a better term for what you are trying to explain, but collective imagination as you tried to explain it is not a real thing. The only real “collective imaginations” are either when ideas, symbols, and images common amongst people who share those or similar experiences can align their their imagination to some degree, or when people create something new by sharing their thoughts amongst each other to form a shared fantasy. Your idea that archetypes and troupes are common amongst all people is just wrong.
I half agree with your statement. In fact, this very argument is proof that you are in some way right; when Irrelevant imagines "collective imagination," they clearly imagine something different than you do when you imagine those same two words, which is proof that your conceptualization of collective imagination doesn't exist. So, you have proven your point, but in proving your point also proven that Irrelevant's point can be true simultaneously, because your point being true means Irrelevant could be imagining collective imagination in a different way, and thus arguing for a different thing than you're arguing against.
O, what a world.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I edited my post and completed my explanation, so we don’t have to live in the existential reality of both our “understandings of collective imaginations” being correct. The way they originally explained it is flawed and not real. That version or understanding of “collective imagination” simply does not exist.
Collective imagination is a set of symbols, customs or memories that have specific meaning to it and common to all the people who are part of it.
That is the technical definition of the concept. To understand what we are talking about. But this is probably not the place to discuss this.
What I do tell you is that denying the existence of a collective imagination is denying the existence of culture.
While shared cultural touchpoints do exist, calling them the "collective imagination" is not standard usage. However, it doesn't particularly matter what you call it, the reality is that the character who uses both weapons and magic to fight isn't common enough to expect people to have a shared cultural understanding of what it means.
While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
You have a false dichotomy, Knight and Archer aren't antonyms, or a thematic opposing pairing. Also this whole discussion highlights that there isnt an agreed upon cultural understanding in this case, and certainly within the dnd community. Furthermore the flavor text of eldritch knight specifically says the magic is used to increase its effectiveness in range. Even if the knight never uses a bow these two classes are both about augmenting the fighters ability to do damage at a range via magic. They are far from being opposites.
the whole concept is a stretch because yall like the idea of AA as an option. Thats fine, they may do it anyway, but its not because they represent a thematic opposite or a gameplay opposite.
its not a good example of melee versus ranged, because eldritch knight doesnt strongly represent melee. Archer clearly strongly represents ranged. The idea that archer thematically represents ranged, is not a valid argument for knight representing melee. Purple doesnt represent the opposite of red, just because its not red. We got one class who is all about ranged magic, and another who is sometimes about ranged magic. These aren't opposites.
It could, but I could also easily imagine it as an order of wizards bound by a code of ethics.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The problem with this argument is that it:
(1) you are ignoring the Eldritch part of the name which connotes Chuthulu-esque horror or strange alien magic, not wizardry. -> Why do you ignore one half of the name and not the other half?
(2) the pop-culture depiction of a Knight is a person in full plate armour riding a horse, using a sword-and-shield or a lance-and-shield. Which in D&D is a Paladin, not a Fighter. Knights without horses are almost as frequently depicted using crossbows to defend the walls or take down enemies that have turned to run as they are with swords, and almost never are depicted using two-handed melee weapons (because a shield painted with their family coat of arms is a near universal symbol of knighthood). Again, this shows how poor of a match the D&D Fighter is to the popular depiction of a Knight.
I’m not saying it’s the only possibility, but if you polled a group of random people what image first comes to mind when they see the word “knight”, do you really think heavy armor with a sword/lance and shield wouldn’t be the lead by a good margin? This isn’t about absolutes, just dominant tropes and trends.