It might take a bit more thought, but the assumption is that the player wants to play a certain type of fiction. So the player wanting to play Hercules might take Enhance Abilities and Jump, but they wouldn't take dimension door if they didn't have to, which they oftentimes don't.
And we probably don't even have to bring up how they interact with spell-nullifying effects since the DM can just not use them on that character. We could just avoid edge-cases like that.
That's...really,
really awful design. "Just don't use those things, and everything is fine!" That's a straight-up Oberoni fallacy. "If you don't
use the rules that might cause problems, then there are no problems!" does not actually demonstrate that there are no problems.
And, apologizes if this seems cold. But it's a bit ironic that I had been called out several times for wanting perfection but at the same time seeming like having any sort of compromise on the other side's part is impossible.
Well...the thing you offered isn't actually a compromise as far as I'm concerned. "Just use spells but like, they're not magical" is literally just telling me to play the game that currently exists, but Think Different™ about it.
Really, I've only heard wants but I never heard any exact basis for them other than some form of what you feel like you deserve. It's why I don't understand what the argument truly is.
Because doing anything deeper than wants is very difficult--it involves actual game design, and I'm not interested in putting in several hours' work to get
possibly-maybe-I'm-not-sure design mockups that will then--guaranteed, absolutely 0 question--get
ripped into by critics as horrible awful rotten garbage destroying the game. I've done that song and dance enough times, I'm not doing it again, no matter how genially-worded the request is.
As for the other bit there, it's not so much what I (or any specific person) "deserves," but rather, what the game itself
offers or
promises. The game's class options are like a menu, where every item is priced equally, but some items are full meals, and others are
just some slices of steak (no sauce, no sides, no breadsticks, no included drink, JUST steak and water)...and not even steak where you decide how it's cooked, you get whatever the chef serves you. Steak can be lovely, and provides a great simple protein option, but pricing
literally just sliced steak at the same price as lobster thermidor with your choice of sides, complimentary drink, and unlimited clam chowder
and breadsticks,
while pretending that all the options are equivalent, is misleading the customer. Either spell it out for all to see so we know exactly what we'll get--that the steak is simply
less food for the money--or let the steak have some simple sides and maybe a drink.
In the spirit of the original post, and this isn't personalized at you specifically:
A complex martial should fit my vision because I would enjoy it.
Counter: It's not feasible to get what you enjoy at all times. Whether because the company doesn't have the time or doesn't want to do it, you can't expect the game to change immediately and exactly like you want it to. You're only a part of the fanbase and can't really make the hard decisions on what should be done.
counter-counter: I don't want perfection, I'm willing to compromise. I just want what's better than we have because improvements should always be encouraged.
counter-counter-counter: But there's already been compromise and improvement and it's still not enough. Half-casters are a compromise. Multiclassing is a compromise. Rogues and Monks are a compromise. Loose lore is a compromise. Feats are a compromise. Yet there needs to be more because it still hasn't fit an exact mold of your vision. And improvements should be made, but why is the improvement you're prioritizing the one that has to do with your opinion?
Curious that you gave this a counter-counter-counter, whereas you did not do that for any of the previous things.
Going through the list: Half-casters are not a compromise,
because they are still casters, and
because they are other classes, not Fighter. Multiclassing is not a compromise
because that isn't Fighter, and ESPECIALLY
if it makes you a caster. Rogue isn't a compromise
because it's not Fighter, nor is Monk (though that also because it's still blatantly "magical" albeit not casting spells, due to Ki, which the game expressly says is magic). Loose lore is not a compromise because
you're still using magic, you've just given it a new name. Feats
could be a compromise, but fall hilariously short for anything except...wait for it...the ones that give you supernatural powers.
That is why this improvement is so important. Literally zero of the "compromises" you've provided are ACTUAL compromises, because they still leave the Fighter in the dust. I don't even
like playing Fighters in most games, and I'm still willing to die on this hill (I vastly prefer Paladins when I want someone beefy, though I also prefer Paladins that are supernatural
but do not cast spells, because spells feel wildly out of touch with the flavor and narrative of what a Paladin is.) An
actual compromise is one that gives
actually specifically Fighters, not some other class, some meaningful inherent utility, even if it remains clearly short of what others can achieve.
If I got truly
everything I wanted, Fighters (and Rogues, for that matter) would have the ability to do things that are legit genuinely
impossible in our world, because they're Just That Good--what I call the "transmundane," as they have reached such superlative mundane skill that it begins to bleed into the supernatural. A thief so skilled she can steal the color of a dapper swain's eyes; a warrior so dedicated his blade can harm abstractions; a commander so persuasive he can convince a demon to surrender or a pacifistic angel to take up arms; a deadeye so sharp, she can hit two targets
in opposite directions with a single arrow. All of them Beyond The Impossible, and yet never using even the smallest bit of "magic"--because the world is just THAT fantastical.
(Obviously, all of these are "very high-level characters doing ridiculously badass things," e.g. this is meant to compare to the upper echelons of Wizard and Cleric powers where they can alter reality and bring the dead back to life with no restrictions other than old age. Early on, these deeds
should be closer to full mundanity, both to emphasize the character's growth over time, and to feed the explicit notion that these are seemingly "mundane" actions that can eventually transcend mundanity and become legends-alive, walking myths.)
Perhaps this helps explain why literally nothing of the things you've suggested is even remotely close to a "compromise" for me. I've
already gone to the maximum compromise I'm willing to accept: Fighters getting more baked-in utility stuff so they have
something meaningful to contribute, even if it's unlikely to be dramatic or flashy. Note the difference between "unlikely to be" and "effectively requires DM contrivance": it is
unlikely that being able to break physical objects a la DW's
Bend Bars, Lift Gates is going to matter overmuch in a (D&D) world where you're adventuring alongside a 10th-level Wizard and a 10th-level Cleric, but I straight-up
don't believe that being able to jump 5 extra feet is going to matter in said world, unless the DM has actively contrived a situation where nothing else will suffice.
And that's...another thing. I gave
Bend Bars, Lift Gates as an example of something
like what I'm looking for, though with the caveat that I recognize the flaws of dropping one game's design elements into another without careful thought. Isn't that exactly what you just asked for? It's an example of the goal, just from another system and thus inappropriate for direct transfer. Like trying to copy idioms literally from one language to another. E.g. "[costar] un ojo de la cara" is literally "[to cost] an eye of the face," which just sounds odd to an English speaker, but it's essentially a perfect match for the native English idiom "[to cost] an arm and a leg." I recognized that
Bend Bars, Lift Gates may be an idiom, or contain idioms, of Dungeon World that don't exist in 5e, so it should be understood in a meaning-for-meaning sense, not a perfect copy.
Why are you against my fun? It doesn't hurt anything that I ask for what I want.
Counter: I have no stakes in your fun. I don't know what you even do let alone whether you're having fun doing it. But these discussions do hurt things. They muddy discussions and cause flame wars. They instigate hate to not just the product but the people that play them. And most importantly, they distract against the issues that plague the system more than just what you want catered to you. The LGBTQIA+ community still doesn't feel completely safe taking part in this hobby. The black and Asian communities still don't feel completely safe playing the game. Women and non-binary players still get harassed. And while it's not a rules issue, it is a system issue which can be resolved. WoTC has been taking good steps to get there but it take time and resources.
Then why did you even start this conversation, or this thread overall? If talking about this stuff is a distraction from important social issues, why did
you create the thread and specifically ask for people to contribute to it? I responded to the invitation provided. This sounds to me like an excellent reason to never have done it in the first place, if you're actually serious about this as a criticism of others' arguments.
In an echo of your own thoughts: not to sound cold, but this sounds a heck of a lot more like "there are starving children in Africa, eat your dinner" than an actual argument and response. Selectively applied to discussions you just don't feel like having. "Don't ask for changes to martials--we need to focus on marginalized groups, not get divided over class design things! Also, who wants to talk about class design?"
