Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5279808" data-attributes="member: 4720">Isn't it enough that they're re-introducing the dreadful D&amp;Dism that martial classes r dumb?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I'm only kidding a very little bit there.&nbsp; &quot;Play a Fighter if you don't want to manage many resources or have many tactical options&quot; has always irritated me.&nbsp; The 4e Fighter and Warlord finally made playing a dude with a sword interesting.&nbsp; IME, lots of people gravitate towards smart and/or tactical warriors.&nbsp; They're certainly common enough in the literature, but historically ill-served by the game unless you wanted Bladesinger baggage or other such truck.If they wanted tactical simplicity to be an option, they should have spread it out among various archetypes.&nbsp; Take your Wizard archetype and create a complicated Mage, simple Sorcerer.&nbsp; Take your Fighter archetype and create a complicated Soldier, simple Warrior.&nbsp; Instead, they returned to the old and tired D&amp;Dism that spellcasters get to be mechanically interesting and martial classes get to be (mostly) mechanically bland.&nbsp; I do like the Thief, though, but that feels like an accident or aberration based on the other things they've presented.But that flavor issue aside, they tossed aside a game structure for the martial classes that made 4e more intuitive to a broad swath of potential D&amp;D players in a way that previous editions simply were not, IME.&nbsp; You take your prototypical WoW or GBA tactics player and set them in front of 4e, and all the classes make sense.&nbsp; You take your prototypical WoW or GBA tactics player and set them in front of 4eE, and casters make sense, but guys with weapons don't.&nbsp; This is particularly galling in light of how interesting and relatively tactical it is to play such classes in MMOs and such.&nbsp; Warriors and Rogues in WoW, for one example, are complicated compared to other classes, especially in terms of resource management.&nbsp; Having D&amp;D swing entirely the opposite way again makes one more stumbling block in the way of crossing more of those people over.&nbsp; IME, they are the fertile recruiting ground.&nbsp; YMMV.In any case, I just don't think it serves the game or the potential playerbase to divide &quot;simple&quot; and &quot;complicated&quot; along those particular lines.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 5279808, member: 4720"] Isn't it enough that they're re-introducing the dreadful D&Dism that martial classes r dumb? ;) I'm only kidding a very little bit there. "Play a Fighter if you don't want to manage many resources or have many tactical options" has always irritated me. The 4e Fighter and Warlord finally made playing a dude with a sword interesting. IME, lots of people gravitate towards smart and/or tactical warriors. They're certainly common enough in the literature, but historically ill-served by the game unless you wanted Bladesinger baggage or other such truck. If they wanted tactical simplicity to be an option, they should have spread it out among various archetypes. Take your Wizard archetype and create a complicated Mage, simple Sorcerer. Take your Fighter archetype and create a complicated Soldier, simple Warrior. Instead, they returned to the old and tired D&Dism that spellcasters get to be mechanically interesting and martial classes get to be (mostly) mechanically bland. I do like the Thief, though, but that feels like an accident or aberration based on the other things they've presented. But that flavor issue aside, they tossed aside a game structure for the martial classes that made 4e more intuitive to a broad swath of potential D&D players in a way that previous editions simply were not, IME. You take your prototypical WoW or GBA tactics player and set them in front of 4e, and all the classes make sense. You take your prototypical WoW or GBA tactics player and set them in front of 4eE, and casters make sense, but guys with weapons don't. This is particularly galling in light of how interesting and relatively tactical it is to play such classes in MMOs and such. Warriors and Rogues in WoW, for one example, [i]are[/i] complicated compared to other classes, especially in terms of resource management. Having D&D swing entirely the opposite way again makes one more stumbling block in the way of crossing more of those people over. IME, they are the fertile recruiting ground. YMMV. In any case, I just don't think it serves the game or the potential playerbase to divide "simple" and "complicated" along those particular lines. [/QUOTE]

Verification