Evolution of the Fighter

[Fifth Element]

2.5 was the Player's/DM Option series

Combat and Tactics, Spells and Magic, etc

Um, yes?

My point was you called Unearthed Arcana "1.5", which I suggest is invalid. It would be like calling the 2E Complete series "2.5". Especially since there is something commonly called 2.5 (Spells & Magic, etc), though I don't think it was called that at the time.

 

[Fifth Element]

So was the Thief-Acrobat, maybe even moreso than the bard (because you left off thieving more or less and gained your fun acrobat stuff)

Yes, true.

 

[Grazzt]

Ah yes, because additional complexity makes anything better. I love how the article doesn't provide framing context (like how fighter, rangers, and paladins were the only classes to *get* multiple attacks)

Yep. Esp the fighter who could attack creatures with less than 1 HD (d8) one time per round per level.

You know, if I'm playing a fighter, presumably it's because I want to play a character whose primary skillset includes weapons and armor and killin' things (this is a generalization of course) - why does a fighter need "extra powers"? If I want that, I'll play Exalted thanks.

Yep. Agreed. I played plenty o' fighters over the years (along with thieves, assassins, magic-users, etc). Fighters never really seemed all that boring to me, even before we got kewl stuff tacked on.

It is likely just my perception but it seems that a lot of these articles are really just "see how much better 4e is than previous, see see??" I grant that they need to do things to sell product but....the notion of using what is ostensibly directly game pertinent material (which was, I thought, the entire point of the digital initiative) to act as marketing is kind of a turn off.

Not just you. I got the same sorta vibe. Reminds me of the idiotic marketing they did earlier basically trashing 3.x and raising 4e up as if it was the holy grail of gaming.

 

[Fifth Element]

You know, if I'm playing a fighter, presumably it's because I want to play a character whose primary skillset includes weapons and armor and killin' things (this is a generalization of course) - why does a fighter need "extra powers"?

Because you might like more ways to use their armour and weapons, and different ways for killin' things? All these "extra powers" involve killin' things.

Some people do get tired of "charge, full attack, full attack, charge..." or whatever the edition-equivalent is for the game you play. I guess I would ask "why is killin' stuff necessarily repetitive"?

In some sense it was nice to have a mechanically simple character that just whacked stuff. But what about players who like to whack stuff, but also want more complex mechanics to do so?

 

[Serendipity]

Because you might like more ways to use their armour and weapons, and different ways for killin' things? All these "extra powers" involve killin' things.
Some people do get tired of "charge, full attack, full attack, charge..." or whatever the edition-equivalent is for the game you play. I guess I would ask "why is killin' stuff necessarily repetitive"?
In some sense it was nice to have a mechanically simple character that just whacked stuff. But what about players who like to whack stuff, but also want more complex mechanics to do so?

Not saying that complexity is inherently bad, just that I disagree that increased complexity is inherently good. One of my favorite things early on in 3.x was that feats allowed me to option the s**t out of my fighters in a way that surpassed simple notions of "what weapons would you like to be good with"?

If I'm going to play a fighter I don't like the notion that I *need* extra complexity just to keep even with the capabilities of the rogues, wizards, etc. in a given party. This could all be (and I think likely is) a matter of personal preference, playstyle and so forth - I call it a feature, others call it a bug. That sort of thing.

I suppose any character "role" (be it class, archtype or whatever) is prone to repetitiveness, some character types just seem more prone to it depending on the game system.

 

[Serendipity]

Yep. Esp the fighter who could attack creatures with less than 1 HD (d8) one time per round per level.



Yep. Agreed. I played plenty o' fighters over the years (along with thieves, assassins, magic-users, etc). Fighters never really seemed all that boring to me, even before we got kewl stuff tacked on.



Not just you. I got the same sorta vibe. Reminds me of the idiotic marketing they did earlier basically trashing 3.x and raising 4e up as if it was the holy grail of gaming.

Ouch. I recall many a nest of kobolds (and othertimes, goblins) that went out like a snuffed match once the party's fighters hit that certain level.

I pretty much just DM nowadays so any chance I have to run a lone PC is precious to me - and I've always had a fondness for fighters and other fairly straightforward "First in, last out" type characters so the factory shine has hardly rubbed off, at least not for me.

A lot of the issues I'm seeing people having with WotC right now (both now and, of course, in the recent past) seem to have the crux of customer service intersecting with marketing and things getting crossed up there. But it does get old feeling like I can't read anything without it turning into a "why aren't you playing 4e?" screed.
Just my perception of course, I know many others don't see it that way.

 

[justanobody]

Um, yes?

My point was you called Unearthed Arcana "1.5", which I suggest is invalid. It would be like calling the 2E Complete series "2.5". Especially since there is something commonly called 2.5 (Spells & Magic, etc), though I don't think it was called that at the time.

if UA is not 1.5, then 3.5 is not 3.5.

Complete series of books (brown/blue/green) did not change the rules. UA changed the rules. Player's Options series changes the rules. 3.5 changed the rules.

Thus the got the ".5" designation to show they were slightly altered.

I guess a few things in 3.5 could be a 3.75 with Incarnum, and a few others that were along the same lines of effect as the original UA, but you could tell playing with UA was a clearly different way than with just the core.

You act like a ".5" is a bad thing?

2.5 wasa bad. 3.5 people seem to be split about but more in favor for it than against it.

1.5 (UA) was just gravy. The only ".5" done right so far IMNSHO.

If not for the ".5"'s there wouldn't have been the newer editions because they all built around those ".5", even ideas from 4th comes from 3.5 and 1.5.

I think DD already showed off a killer fighter from UA in another thread, dropping 700+ damage per round...as a "striker" that fighters started out being.

 

[Remathilis]

Not just you. I got the same sorta vibe. Reminds me of the idiotic marketing they did earlier basically trashing 3.x and raising 4e up as if it was the holy grail of gaming.

A lot of the issues I'm seeing people having with WotC right now (both now and, of course, in the recent past) seem to have the crux of customer service intersecting with marketing and things getting crossed up there. But it does get old feeling like I can't read anything without it turning into a "why aren't you playing 4e?" screed.
Just my perception of course, I know many others don't see it that way.

the D&D Alumni section has always praised the current edition. Check out the alumni section on Players Handbooks and Rogues for some "Ain't 3.5 better than that old D&D? Look at those ACs!" type of spin.

They're selling the latest edition, not convincing us their old stuff is just as good, if not better. Let Enworld handle that!

 

[justanobody]

the D&D Alumni section has always praised the current edition. Check out the alumni section on Players Handbooks and Rogues for some "Ain't 3.5 better than that old D&D? Look at those ACs!" type of spin.

They're selling the latest edition, not convincing us their old stuff is just as good, if not better. Let Enworld handle that!

I thought the new format of the Dragon and Dungeon were supposed to be advertisement free.

 

[Remathilis]

I thought the new format of the Dragon and Dungeon were supposed to be advertisement free.

Never hurts to preach to the choir.