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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6141773" data-attributes="member: 17106">Playing fighters in both editions. My point is this: in both versions, fighters don't have a ton of character creation choices. And in both versions, the choices you make in play are very similar. The mechanics for executing those choices may be different, but those get internalized very quickly.In 2e, you are largely picking which weapon to specialize in, your ability scores, and NWPs. In 3e, you're picking skills and feats. The feats got more complicated with later supplements, but early on the choices were very simple. It's very straightforward. If you're using a greatsword, you specialize in greatsword or pick Weapon Focus (Greatsword). Even in late 3.5, most fighters still make these basic choices. Fighters are for players who don't want to make a lot of character generation choices like spells (or powers).Once you're actually playing your fighter, you're picking which targets to attack and when and where to move, while assessing the threat levels of enemies and watching your own hp. You're not managing healing surges or power uses. Again, the fighter player is someone who doesn't want to have a spreadsheet of choices, either because he wants to optimize a finite set of options, or because he doesn't care much about these things at all.So while your statements about mechanics are true enough, on a macro level I think a 2e and 3e fighter are much the same. Their wizardly and clerical and various other counterparts are even more similar. The one that changed the most, IMO, is thief to rogue (but even then, the 4e rogue is a  much bigger change).I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't say they created a toxic culture. I liked them. They're helpful for DMs who don't have time to learn a character the way a player does. They're helpful for players who aren't already min/maxers. They're also fun thought exercises.The only problem is if you look at those threads and take them too literally. Have people done that? Sure. But I think much of the Charop discussion was perfectly healthy and reasonable. I also think that it simply put out in the open thoughts that people always had but never had internet forums to express them on. I think DMs and WotC overreacting to Charop is as big a problem as the min/maxing itself. The thing that prevents rules lawyering and powergaming is good DMing and players who aren't intentionally disruptive, and I don't see that those elements of the community are ever likely to increase or decrease radically in frequency.</blockquote>

Verification