D&D (2024) Fighter brainstorm

[Incenjucar]

The simple class we need is the wizard.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No it's not. No rules will fix bad players.

it's not bad players... give a new class (call it warlord or warblade or swordsage) the power and options available to a caster while fulff stays martial and the problem solves itself

That's been a given for, well, since forever. If it were a game design problem and not a player problem, then every game table from 1974 to 2000 would have experienced this problem. And we most assuredly did not.

if it wasn't a problem then 4e never would have been made... by the end of 3.5 (the worst edition for it) you find that more tables had the problem reported then didn't.

I notice you tried to cut 3e out though... you know back when classes were more balanced, before saves saceled with casters and all casters got extra spells, back when casters had major limits like % chance to know a spell...

You can. That's what we have been saying the whole time. No one is saying we should only have simple classes. Rather it's the opposite. It's people like Incenjucar saying we don't need simple classes. I'm sorry, but the "side" that's advocating for exclusion is your side on this.

no it isn't I have pushed my "break the fighter in 3" in like 20 threads just since 1D&D was announced and I started the idea a few years before that

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's a very rare player that needs a simpler class to engage in Mother May I.

anything a fighter can choose to do as "outside the mechancis" so can the hexblade, the valor bard, the warcleric, and the bladesinger wizard

 

[Sacrosanct]

it's not bad players... give a new class (call it warlord or warblade or swordsage) the power and options available to a caster while fulff stays martial and the problem solves itself

if it wasn't a problem then 4e never would have been made...

That's a false assumption. 4e would have been made regardless if there was a simple version or complex version. Because 4e was made in no way proves or shows that it was a problem.

by the end of 3.5 (the worst edition for it) you find that more tables had the problem reported then didn't.

I notice you tried to cut 3e out though...

I didn't cut out 3e. I specifically alluded to it when I said from 1974 to 2000. Because with 3e, we suddenly had all these skills and feats. And coincidentally that's when I and many others started to see players look at the character sheet to see if they had a particular feat or skill before attempting something.

no it isn't

Yes, it is. Just look at the past 3 pages. You've got folks like me explicitly making the effort to say we can have both, and advocating how liking the simple fighter doesn't mean we are taking away from the complex fighter, and then you've got folks literally advocating against having a simple class in the game. It absolutely is that.

 

[Incenjucar]

To be accurate, I've advocated for the return of the slayer and the elementalist to the game so that the martial classes can be on par with the magic classes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's a false assumption. 4e would have been made regardless if there was a simple version or complex version. Because 4e was made in no way proves or shows that it was a problem.

4e addressed the issue at hand "Caster supremacy" after years of organized complaint with 3.5

I didn't cut out 3e. I specifically alluded to it when I said from 1974 to 2000. Because with 3e, we suddenly had all these skills and feats.

2000 is the start, the first 4-6 months of 3e so yeah by not saying "until now" you did cut out 3e

And coincidentally that's when I and many others started to see players look at the character sheet to see if they had a particular feat or skill before attempting something.

lol yeah players are the only problem got it....

Yes, it is.

no it isn't

Just look at the past 3 pages. You've got folks like me explicitly making the effort to say we can have both, and advocating how liking the simple fighter doesn't mean we are taking away from the complex fighter, and then you've got folks literally advocating against having a simple class in the game. It absolutely is that.

and you have folks like me advocating for a more complex class (addative not replace) and being told it's not a mechanic issue but a player one... by the way its YOU saying that

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To be accurate, I've advocated for the return of the slayer and the elementalist to the game so that the martial classes can be on par with the magic classes.

tbh I think a simple champion/slayer like fighter is a great idea for people that WATN simple martial, but I think a 4e fighter/3.5 warblade/ 4e warlord class is needed (but rettoled so they have options for all 3 pillars, warblades still didn't have much socal and very little exploration)

 

[Sacrosanct]

2000 is the start, the first 4-6 months of 3e so yeah by not saying "until now" you did cut out 3e

I don't think you're understanding me. The claim was made that it's always been a design problem and not a player problem. I disgreed, saying that if it was a design problem, then it would have been a problem for everyone from 1974 to 2000 (when the fighter was simple with not many options) and it wasn't. Not even close. So therefore, it wasn't a design issue but a player issue. I said up to 2000 because that's when 3e came out and more complex rules were added. That's not excluding 3e. That's literally including it.

lol yeah players are the only problem got it....

Again, you're not understanding me. I am not saying only the players are the problem. I said when 3e came out, with things like feats and expansive skills, I (and others) saw it happen a lot more when players would look at their sheet to see if they had a particular skill or feat before doing something. That's not saying anyone is a problem, that's an observation of how people reacted.

no it isn't

Do I need to provide you the quotes? yeah it is. We can see the comments people have made doing it. I don't know why you're denying it when the quotes are all right there. Seems odd to me do claim the opposite.

and you have folks like me advocating for a more complex class (addative not replace) and being told it's not a mechanic issue but a player one... by the way its YOU saying that

Me saying unreasonable DMs is a player and not design issue is NOT saying that complex classes should not be in the game. I was responding to the comment that simple classes are bad because you have to rely on mother-may-I DMs, and how that is a player issue, not a design issue, for reasons I already gave.

 

[Incenjucar]

Fighters have been an issue since at least 2E. I cannot speak to earlier than that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think you're understanding me. The claim was made that it's always been a design problem and not a player problem. I disgreed, saying that if it was a design problem, then it would have been a problem for everyone from 1974 to 2000 (when the fighter was simple with not many options) and it wasn't. Not even close.

and the modern wizard wasn't invented yet either... you DID have simple casters too... you had a couple of spells and had to prep them in the slot to use them. the fighter DID have as much or more flexibility and there were not skills or feats but there were non weapon profs...

the problem STARTED in 2000 (or atleast got massively worse, if you say it was there before) with the power and versatility of all casters blowing out while martials didn't get the same.

So therefore, it wasn't a design issue but a player issue. I said up to 2000 because that's when 3e came out and more complex rules were added. That's not excluding 3e. That's literally including it.

excapt those complex rules lead to (what we have now) caster suprmacy... I will admite 5e is better then 3.5 but not by a ton.

Again, you're not understanding me. I am not saying only the players are the problem. I said when 3e came out, with things like feats and expansive skills, I (and others) saw it happen a lot more when players would look at their sheet to see if they had a particular skill or feat before doing something. That's not saying anyone is a problem, that's an observation of how people reacted.

it is bunk

Me saying unreasonable DMs is a player and not design issue is NOT saying that complex classes should not be in the game. I was responding to the comment that simple classes are bad because you have to rely on mother-may-I DMs, and how that is a player issue, not a design issue, for reasons I already gave.

the fact that only half (actually like 3 out of 12) the classes have to deal with it and the others don't shows the design flaw