Unpopular opinions go here

[Maxperson]

But you aren't happy. You are contradicting yourself. You flat out said that the only way you would be happy is if someone got a mythic fighter that wasn't a fighter.

This is incorrect. I gave or agreed to multiple ways for it to happen.

1) Make a fighting type class that's mythic and add it to the game.
2) Make optional mythic fighter rules and put them in the DMG for folks like you to use.

That's two perfectly fine ways for you to have a mythical fighting type.

The only way to add in a sort of mythic capability to different classes is to create new classes. The existing classes must not be changed.

So what? Why is it so important to you that the mythical fighting type class be named fighter?

So, which is it? Can I have a mythic fighter - an optional add on that starts at about 11th level and adds a number of elements to the base fighter chasis? Or must I be forced to either go with 3pp (cf the warlord) or hope that WotC will actually create a new class?

I've already said yes prior to this exchange on the bolded part. start it at 11th level, 1st level, 3rd level, or whatever. Doesn't matter to me where optional rules start. You can opt in and I don't have to.

Considering the HUGE amount of push back every suggestion of changing the fighter gets - including your own insistence that a fighter must never be changed because you like the flavor - I'm thinking that perhaps your position isn't quite as broad as your claiming.

Optional rules don't change the fighter. The fighter remains as is and you get to opt into any changes.

 

[Hussar]

So what? Why is it so important to you that the mythical fighting type class be named fighter?

Thus exactly my point. Repeat this conversation for virtually any change to the game and it's exactly the same result. Nothing gets actually fixed or changed or allowed to evolve because any change is always going to be blocked. Thus 5e is the evergreen edition in truth.

Look, I know I lost this argument years ago. We couldn't even get a warlord into 5e. Get a mythic fighter? Good luck. That's not going to happen. The goalposts will just be endlessly moved further and further back. The only way we get any sort of changes is when they're stealthed in. Like how the latest Great Old One Warlock is now a stealth psionicist.

Sneaky sneaky catchy monkey.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That kind of runs contrary to what D&D is, though.

Hence it being an unpopular opinion

 

[Maxperson]

Thus exactly my point. Repeat this conversation for virtually any change to the game and it's exactly the same result.

It's kinda classy to cut out all the other stuff that says I'm okay with you having a mythic fighter option and just got with one line and then say, "Exactly my point." when the stuff you cut out counters your point.

Hell, you're asking to be gimped. Cludging on a few mythic abilities to the fighter class gives you a crappy mythic fighter. Getting a class with new subclasses all designed around a mythic fighter type would result in a much better version. But if you really want to cludge a few abilities onto the fighter, try and get some optional fighter rules put into the DMG or future supplement. They've shown a willingness to sub out features for various classes already.

 

[Hussar]

I just find the irony delicious. It's perfectly fine that the latest playtest has stealthed in a psionic warlock with the Great Old One pact. No problems. Completely change the flavor of the class. Perfectly fine. But, add something to fighters? Oh hell no.

Ah well. It's always the way. People constantly complain about how casters get all the good stuff, but, any attempt to give anything to the non-casters and get that that's not really D&D. Like I said, 6 impossible things before breakfast is perfectly fine, but, that seventh boy, that's a doozy.

Would just be nice if just once, people would accept a bit of compromise. Let me have the last eight or ten levels of fighter to make a mythic fighter. Most players aren't even going to notice since so few actually play those levels anyway. But, nope. THOU SHALT NOT CHANGE THE FIGHTER. It's 100% the way it is now, or nothing.

 

[deganawida]

I am sick of hearing “multiverse” constantly. The focus on it in the new D&D material particularly sits in my craw.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I am sick of hearing “multiverse” constantly. The focus on it in the new D&D material particularly sits in my craw.

Amen to that.

This is one of the main reason I'm developing a setting using the One World concept in the DMG, directly to oppose the idea of Multiverse.

One World. In this model, there are no other planes of existence, but the Material Plane includes places like the bottomless Abyss, the shining Mount Celestia, the strange city of Mechanus, the fortress of Acheron, and so on. All the planes are locations in the world, reachable by ordinary means of travel-though extraordinary effort is required, for example, to sail across the sea to the blessed isles of Elysium.

A Multiverse needs to be considered from the start if you want to use it well. You've got to make planar incursions and travels a meaningful part of the setting. Like in MtG, for example. In most settings, the Multiverse just seems tacked-on or matter-of-fact-y ''oh, by the way, we're part of a multiverse we'll maybe see if we reach high level''.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I am sick of hearing “multiverse” constantly. The focus on it in the new D&D material particularly sits in my craw.

I hate current D&D's peculiar use of multiverse. In most media it's a convention that allows you to have different versions of the same thing. Here it's an excuse to impose a single monomyth on all settings.

 

[Reynard]

Amen to that.

This is one of the main reason I'm developing a setting using the One World concept in the DMG, directly to oppose the idea of Multiverse.

One World. In this model, there are no other planes of existence, but the Material Plane includes places like the bottomless Abyss, the shining Mount Celestia, the strange city of Mechanus, the fortress of Acheron, and so on. All the planes are locations in the world, reachable by ordinary means of travel-though extraordinary effort is required, for example, to sail across the sea to the blessed isles of Elysium.

A Multiverse needs to be considered from the start if you want to use it well. You've got to make planar incursions and travels a meaningful part of the setting. Like in MtG, for example. In most settings, the Multiverse just seems tacked-on or matter-of-fact-y ''oh, by the way, we're part of a multiverse we'll maybe see if we reach high level''.

My favorite cosmology is that ever plane is a parallel to the prime, with perhaps exaggerated but recognizable geography and even cities (but inhabited by devils or genies or whatever is appropriate to that plane). Traveling is just "stepping sideways" through a portal. "Faerie" I'd closest and most similar, while the Far Realm is, well, farthest and most alien.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

My favorite cosmology is that ever plane is a parallel to the prime, with perhaps exaggerated but recognizable geography and even cities (but inhabited by devils or genies or whatever is appropriate to that plane). Traveling is just "stepping sideways" through a portal. "Faerie" I'd closest and most similar, while the Far Realm is, well, farthest and most alien.

I like that a lot.