Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3957383" data-attributes="member: 24970">I generally have always played spellcasting characters, but from all the 4e hype, I expect fighters and other martial characters to be beefed up with lots of new, bizarre and powerful abilities in 4e.However, I will say this: I don't think "resource management", i.e. "I can do x number of stunts per encounter," should NECESSARILY be a component of fighters. Why? Because in my experience of D&D, there is almost always a player (or two) who wants to play a 1e~3e fighter simply because they are the simplest class and have the least stuff to keep track of. On the other hand, there are some people (like me) who love book-keeping dozens of spells (or stunts) and re-memorizing new ones every day. Due to the tastes and experience levels of different gamers, I firmly believe there should be Simple Classes and More Complicated Classes... it's not a design error, it can be a conscious choice. So while I'm totally cool with the power level of the classes being evened out, I would suggest that the "amount of bookkeeping per class" NOT be evened out. Different people simply prefer different types of characters, and some people like more rules nitty-gritty than other people, whereas some people don't even like having to choose Feats. So I firmly think there should be an easy-to-bookkeep martial class (and perhaps an easy-to-bookkeep arcane class, and a hard-to-bookkeep martial class, and a hard-to-bookkeep arcane class, etc.). Whether this "simple, easy to play" fighting class is the Fighter or the Barbarian or the Warlord, I don't know, but there should be one.</blockquote>

Verification