Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6276458" data-attributes="member: 17106">I think you're confusing the one build that is usually best supported by the rules with the conceptual space the class is supposed to cover. The cleric, for example, has almost always had mechanical abilities representing some warrior priest, but in practice serves to cover a wide range of characters, some of whom don't even worship deities and many of whom never use weapons or armor. Likewise, rogues all have sneak attack, but many of them don't actually use it because they're more spies, scouts, or something else entirely; it's an odd mechanical artifact rather than a central defining feature.This is true, but misleading. Where the other classes are broad is where they have mechanical subsystems that have been built around them, that they then tap into (skills and spells). Because the basic combat mechanics for D&amp;D are too simple (AC vs attack, hp damage, and...well what else is there) there isn't enough design space to create the fighter abilities you crave.And yet whenever a more robust health system is brought up, people start complaining of death spirals. Whenever AC is replaced with blocking and dodging, all the people who didn't care about tracking resources are suddenly concerned that these reactions take too long. Whenever a new combat action is proposed, people start complaining that it will be spammed constantly.The problem is that while everything else has been innovated, the core combat mechanics of D&amp;D are composed largely of sacred cows that even the 4e &quot;reformers&quot; didn't dare touch. Thus, the class that is built around them hasn't been innovated much either. It works as it is, but a fighter that leverages an injury system and reactions would definitely be better. (And it is, IME).Cherry-picking spells is also kind of a problem, one simply fixed by giving them prerequisites like what feats have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6276458, member: 17106"] I think you're confusing the one build that is usually best supported by the rules with the conceptual space the class is supposed to cover. The cleric, for example, has almost always had mechanical abilities representing some warrior priest, but in practice serves to cover a wide range of characters, some of whom don't even worship deities and many of whom never use weapons or armor. Likewise, rogues all have sneak attack, but many of them don't actually use it because they're more spies, scouts, or something else entirely; it's an odd mechanical artifact rather than a central defining feature. This is true, but misleading. Where the other classes are broad is where they have mechanical subsystems that have been built around them, that they then tap into (skills and spells). Because the basic combat mechanics for D&D are too simple (AC vs attack, hp damage, and...well what else is there) there isn't enough design space to create the fighter abilities you crave. And yet whenever a more robust health system is brought up, people start complaining of death spirals. Whenever AC is replaced with blocking and dodging, all the people who didn't care about tracking resources are suddenly concerned that these reactions take too long. Whenever a new combat action is proposed, people start complaining that it will be spammed constantly. The problem is that while everything else has been innovated, the core combat mechanics of D&D are composed largely of sacred cows that even the 4e "reformers" didn't dare touch. Thus, the class that is built around them hasn't been innovated much either. It works as it is, but a fighter that leverages an injury system and reactions would definitely be better. (And it is, IME). Cherry-picking spells is also kind of a problem, one simply fixed by giving them prerequisites like what feats have. [/QUOTE]

Verification