Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8672996" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Well instead of "martial" we could say "non-magical".  By default, Fighters don't use any kind of magic, nor do they have much in the way of superhuman abilities- they are just well-trained.This gets a little fuzzy with Barbarians and Rogues, as they can do things that seem superhuman more routinely.  And then every other class is explicitly supernatural or able to wield spells. Which allows them to have special abilities that non-magical classes can't even approach.That most people seem ok with this always struck me as odd.  I don't need Fighters to cast spells, it's fine, that's not their hat.  But they could easily have more superhuman abilities, especially at higher levels.  Instead, this is entirely put into Subclass, because there is a group of people who play D&D who like the fantasy of the "regular guy who somehow fights giant monsters".But the...issue (not going to use the word "problem") I have with this is that there are lots of things that the game assumes require magic to deal with beyond "fighting giant monsters".  Traditionally, it's been completely the hat of the magic classes to deal with these, and the non-magic classes just...wait until they can do their thing again.It's a team game, sure.  No one character can have all the answers.  But the fact that some classes have a higher percentage of answers than others strikes me as a little off kilter.  With feats, magic items, and multiclassing being rules elements that might as well say "use at your own risk" by WotC, the mechanics that could attempt to balance the scales can't be counted on, save at the table of individual DM's.After many many threads where variations of this debate come up, there are always loud voices that say "nothing is wrong, everything is working as Arneson and Gygax intended" (whether or not that is true is an entirely different debate).And what bothers me about this is, even if that is true for many tables, why is tinkering with classes like the Fighter such a problem that rather than say "Fighters are fine" and moving on, certain voices keep coming back to say "you're still wrong, you don't know what you're talking about, I wish you'd stop saying otherwise".As if the idea that a small group of people can have a different opinion, and would like to see change is somehow offensive or even possibly harmful.  Sometimes, I even see comments like "go play some other game if you're not happy".I thought D&D was for everyone, first of all.  And second, are you afraid that someone with the power to make changes to the game will come here, see a handful of people talking about their concerns, and suddenly the entire game will be transformed as a result?</blockquote>

Verification