Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vikingkingq" data-source="post: 6012776" data-attributes="member: 66208">Yes, I understand that many among the 20% don't want to play fighters - the point is, by allowing CS dice to be dumped into Deadly Strike, they remove the argument that the complex Fighter would deprive those who do like the Simple Fighter of their preferred playstyle. Which means that there isn't really a credible argument against complex Fighters any more, and a naked dog-in-the-manger attitude isn't going to fly. Can't speak to anything before AD&amp;D 2nd edition, but come on, Weapon Specialization was +1 to attack and +2 to damage, and I'm pretty sure that all Warriors shared the same attack progression. Passive bonuses are not very distinct mechanics.&nbsp; And the 1st Playtest Fighter, the one everyone hated? Had a +1 to attack and +2 to damage. Very distinctive, that. The larger point is - the Paladin is much more focused around a connection to the divine than they are to being a warrior, and to the extent that they are warriors, they are working very differently from fighters. The Fighter prevents damage directed at their allies, the Paladin sacrifices themselves by taking on the damage that their allies would otherwise suffer. CS would detract from this class concept by making a class that's supposed to be about divinely-inspired abilities play the same as a class that's supposed to be about purely mundane tactics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vikingkingq, post: 6012776, member: 66208"] Yes, I understand that many among the 20% don't want to play fighters - the point is, by allowing CS dice to be dumped into Deadly Strike, they remove the argument that the complex Fighter would deprive those who do like the Simple Fighter of their preferred playstyle. Which means that there isn't really a credible argument against complex Fighters any more, and a naked dog-in-the-manger attitude isn't going to fly. Can't speak to anything before AD&D 2nd edition, but come on, Weapon Specialization was +1 to attack and +2 to damage, and I'm pretty sure that all Warriors shared the same attack progression. Passive bonuses are not very distinct mechanics. And the 1st Playtest Fighter, the one everyone hated? Had a +1 to attack and +2 to damage. Very distinctive, that. The larger point is - the Paladin is much more focused around a connection to the divine than they are to being a warrior, and to the extent that they are warriors, they are working very differently from fighters. The Fighter prevents damage directed at their allies, the Paladin sacrifices themselves by taking on the damage that their allies would otherwise suffer. CS would detract from this class concept by making a class that's supposed to be about divinely-inspired abilities play the same as a class that's supposed to be about purely mundane tactics. [/QUOTE]

Verification