Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5954715" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, 4e did it, so hard, maybe but not impossible.You're not describing hard to design, you're describing a prejudice against not merely a complex fighter, but a capable fighter.&nbsp; You are, indeed, describing an opinion - held by &quot;many groups&quot; - that the fighter must suck.&nbsp; It is not designing a complex, balanced fighter that is the difficulty.&nbsp; It is overcoming the prejudice against a fighter that has mere parity with casters that is hard. There is no balance to be obtained by making one class tightly limited by spurious 'realism,' and others completely unrestrained in breadth and scope of power.&nbsp; It doesn't matter if you have the fighter hitting and one-shotting every monster in the book - he'll just be an overpowered choiceless beatstick instead of an underpowered choiceless beatstick. I understand the call for 'simple' characters, but they're going to have to come from each archetype, and complex ones from each.&nbsp; Seriously, I'm sorry if you didn't mean this way and I've just picked your thread to throw down this particular gauntlet, but it's an unacceptable demand.&nbsp; If 5e is going to be an 'inclusive' edition, it's going to have to include a balanced fighter that has parity with casters.&nbsp; It can be ignored by anyone who doesn't like it, but it needs to be provided.&nbsp; Not just the fighter, but each martial or 'non-caster' class, Warlord and Rogue as well, and Ranger if there's a non-casting version of it.If 5e is going to be inclusive and bring everyone together, it - and the community that supports it - is going to have to get over this prejudice.Edit:&nbsp; Yes, I am using the word &quot;prejudice.&quot;&nbsp; I do not mean this as some sort of allusion to RL political issues, nor do I mean to diminish the importance of those issues.&nbsp; I am not calling anyone a bigot.&nbsp; The OP described a more or less hypothetical attitude, and I'm applying a label to it that fits.&nbsp; Prejudice:&nbsp; &quot;an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.&quot;Which is exactly what we're dealing with here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5954715, member: 996"] Well, 4e did it, so hard, maybe but not impossible. You're not describing hard to design, you're describing a prejudice against not merely a complex fighter, but a capable fighter. You are, indeed, describing an opinion - held by "many groups" - that the fighter must suck. It is not designing a complex, balanced fighter that is the difficulty. It is overcoming the prejudice against a fighter that has mere parity with casters that is hard. There is no balance to be obtained by making one class tightly limited by spurious 'realism,' and others completely unrestrained in breadth and scope of power. It doesn't matter if you have the fighter hitting and one-shotting every monster in the book - he'll just be an overpowered choiceless beatstick instead of an underpowered choiceless beatstick. I understand the call for 'simple' characters, but they're going to have to come from each archetype, and complex ones from each. Seriously, I'm sorry if you didn't mean this way and I've just picked your thread to throw down this particular gauntlet, but it's an unacceptable demand. If 5e is going to be an 'inclusive' edition, it's going to have to include a balanced fighter that has parity with casters. It can be ignored by anyone who doesn't like it, but it needs to be provided. Not just the fighter, but each martial or 'non-caster' class, Warlord and Rogue as well, and Ranger if there's a non-casting version of it. If 5e is going to be inclusive and bring everyone together, it - and the community that supports it - is going to have to get over this prejudice. Edit: Yes, I am using the word "prejudice." I do not mean this as some sort of allusion to RL political issues, nor do I mean to diminish the importance of those issues. I am not calling anyone a bigot. The OP described a more or less hypothetical attitude, and I'm applying a label to it that fits. Prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." Which is exactly what we're dealing with here. [/QUOTE]

Verification