Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 8965955" data-attributes="member: 63508">I agree we don't need the Slayer and Brute as classes.But if there is only one fighter class, we would need a Slayer subclass and a Brute subclass because people will get bored of one but still want to be simple warriors. And we can't have that as there is not enough design space.If The Fighter is the only non-manageable Marshall Warrior class and you force a simple subclass in it it will be a beginner's subclass for noobs.If you want a fighter class that is simple but stays interesting past the newbie stage, you have to design it that way from the ground up.And you can only do that if the whole class is designed to be simple (new class) or the system is designed to have a large range of bonuses (unbounded accuracy, tons of attacks, +damage galore).The D&amp;D community will be charged in this playtest to have the cake or eat the cake. .</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 8965955, member: 63508"] I agree we don't need the Slayer and Brute as classes. But if there is only one fighter class, we would need a Slayer subclass and a Brute subclass because people will get bored of one but still want to be simple warriors. And we can't have that as there is not enough design space. If The Fighter is the only non-manageable Marshall Warrior class and you force a simple subclass in it it will be a beginner's subclass for noobs. If you want a fighter class that is simple but stays interesting past the newbie stage, you have to design it that way from the ground up. And you can only do that if the whole class is designed to be simple ([B]new class[/B]) or the system is designed to have a large range of bonuses ([B]unbounded accuracy, tons of attacks, +damage galore[/B]). The D&D community will be charged in this playtest to have the cake or eat the cake. . [/QUOTE]

Verification