Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 5955253" data-attributes="member: 12306">Some things came up in response to my opening post that I honestly would never have expected.&nbsp; The below quoted post is as good a starting point as any to talk them.They aren't &quot;bad&quot;.&nbsp; They are, however, weak and cause plausibility conflicts.&nbsp; They, alongside &quot;improvisation&quot;, are really, really bad things to try to achieve class-balance off of.I liked Bo9S.&nbsp; A lot.&nbsp; The Warblade's recovering mechanic fits a master tactician who needs to periodically step back and reevaluate the situation quite well.&nbsp; The Crusader's more random recovery mechanic fits a fighter who takes advantage of the vagaries of combat to engage in the tactics that fit the situation (as determined by a random draw of available maneuvers).I dislike 4e's fighter however, in part because of the Encounter/Daily powers, and in part because the jettisoning of fluff means that players can't act outside the box.&nbsp; I dislike improvisation as an imposed class mechanic, and I find most &quot;awesome cases of improvisation&quot; to be rather sad in truth.&nbsp; I greatly fear swords turning into stat-sticks while fighters improvise away.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that I dislike using abilities cleverly.However, I don't think these comparisons are relevant.&nbsp; The Simple Fighter we have seen in the playtest and the Warblade are simply too far apart to be part of the same class.&nbsp; Add onto that Mearls's comments on Maneuvers coming as part of Themes (which otherwise provides Feats or the equivalent) and it really, really doesn't look like the 5e Fighter is heading down the Warblade path.&nbsp; I admit that I was discounting the possibility entirely, and would bet, heavily, against it.Duh.&nbsp; Well, Iron Heart Surge won't have any effect on Forcecage, but still.&nbsp; This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with Simple vs. Complex Fighter, as you note in the final sentence.&nbsp; Simple or Complex, Fighters need some ability to shirk off hostile magical effects (10hp/use?), and eventually, some ability to break through Walls of Force or Prismatic Spheres.Again, I fail to see how this is relevant in the context of Simple vs. Complex.&nbsp; It seems that many people read &quot;Simple Fighter=Gimp&quot;, &quot;Complex Fighter=Hercules&quot;.&nbsp; Can someone explain *why* they read things that way?&nbsp; Making a class complex usually weakens it, rather than the reverse, because designers are optimistic about how often the stars align and a class operates at maximum capacity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kraydak, post: 5955253, member: 12306"] Some things came up in response to my opening post that I honestly would never have expected. The below quoted post is as good a starting point as any to talk them. They aren't "bad". They are, however, weak and cause plausibility conflicts. They, alongside "improvisation", are really, really bad things to try to achieve class-balance off of. I liked Bo9S. A lot. The Warblade's recovering mechanic fits a master tactician who needs to periodically step back and reevaluate the situation quite well. The Crusader's more random recovery mechanic fits a fighter who takes advantage of the vagaries of combat to engage in the tactics that fit the situation (as determined by a random draw of available maneuvers). I dislike 4e's fighter however, in part because of the Encounter/Daily powers, and in part because the jettisoning of fluff means that players can't act outside the box. I dislike improvisation as an imposed class mechanic, and I find most "awesome cases of improvisation" to be rather sad in truth. I greatly fear swords turning into stat-sticks while fighters improvise away. That doesn't mean that I dislike using abilities cleverly. However, I don't think these comparisons are relevant. The Simple Fighter we have seen in the playtest and the Warblade are simply too far apart to be part of the same class. Add onto that Mearls's comments on Maneuvers coming as part of Themes (which otherwise provides Feats or the equivalent) and it really, really doesn't look like the 5e Fighter is heading down the Warblade path. I admit that I was discounting the possibility entirely, and would bet, heavily, against it. Duh. Well, Iron Heart Surge won't have any effect on Forcecage, but still. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with Simple vs. Complex Fighter, as you note in the final sentence. Simple or Complex, Fighters need some ability to shirk off hostile magical effects (10hp/use?), and eventually, some ability to break through Walls of Force or Prismatic Spheres. Again, I fail to see how this is relevant in the context of Simple vs. Complex. It seems that many people read "Simple Fighter=Gimp", "Complex Fighter=Hercules". Can someone explain *why* they read things that way? Making a class complex usually weakens it, rather than the reverse, because designers are optimistic about how often the stars align and a class operates at maximum capacity. [/QUOTE]

Verification