Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6012666" data-attributes="member: 996">I agree the 'for dummies' thing can be taken too far, resulting in 'hazing classes' that exist only to teach you how not to play the game.&nbsp; A more legitimate concept might be 'for beginners' or 'for casual players,' but, even then, it shouldn't be a specific class, but an approach (like pre-builds) that works with any class (or, at least, character concept).&nbsp;It sure seems that way.&nbsp; Some of the objection to complex/viable/option-rich/whatever fighters is not from who want the opposite as an option, but those who want to deny others the option.&nbsp; There's far too much of that attitude still flying around the community for the 5e ideal of an inclusive D&amp;D to have much of a shot here.&nbsp; Hopefully the broader community is more accepting.&nbsp;That's an interesting take.&nbsp; The 3.x fighter offered a lot of customizeability relative to earlier fighters, and it still had Weapon Specialization as a fighter-only fighter-bonus feat.&nbsp; It's hard to think of it as the nadir of the fighter class, even if the extreme imbalance of the top optimization tier and spectre of CoDzilla made it so.&nbsp; In a vacuum, it's a nice, elegant, robust design.&nbsp;That's just so D&amp;D, though.&nbsp; PCs are supposed to be modeled on heroes of high fantasy, but they can end up a bit like professional home-invasion robbers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6012666, member: 996"] I agree the 'for dummies' thing can be taken too far, resulting in 'hazing classes' that exist only to teach you how not to play the game. A more legitimate concept might be 'for beginners' or 'for casual players,' but, even then, it shouldn't be a specific class, but an approach (like pre-builds) that works with any class (or, at least, character concept). It sure seems that way. Some of the objection to complex/viable/option-rich/whatever fighters is not from who want the opposite as an option, but those who want to deny others the option. There's far too much of that attitude still flying around the community for the 5e ideal of an inclusive D&D to have much of a shot here. Hopefully the broader community is more accepting. That's an interesting take. The 3.x fighter offered a lot of customizeability relative to earlier fighters, and it still had Weapon Specialization as a fighter-only fighter-bonus feat. It's hard to think of it as the nadir of the fighter class, even if the extreme imbalance of the top optimization tier and spectre of CoDzilla made it so. In a vacuum, it's a nice, elegant, robust design. That's just so D&D, though. PCs are supposed to be modeled on heroes of high fantasy, but they can end up a bit like professional home-invasion robbers. [/QUOTE]

Verification