Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7828099" data-attributes="member: 15700">No it's not.&nbsp; If no class as it's core is mechanically simple, how can you have a mechanically simpler option?&nbsp; Subclasses add features, not take them away.&nbsp; If the core fighter is complex, then there is no option for all of the players out there who want a simpler mundane fighter.&nbsp; There are many of said people.&nbsp; I'm one of them.&nbsp; And we gave our survey feedback, which Mearls and co saw and knew that their design goal needed to include that option.&nbsp; It was a design goal to have a simpler mechanical class.&nbsp; That was one of the requirements of the game's design.So it's not false.&nbsp; It's true.&nbsp; The foundation (the class) must be mechanically simple.&nbsp; From there you can add complexity via subclass features, feats, etc.My answer to their comment (saying I'm relying on a magical feat) was &quot;good thing there tons of other (non magical) feats that prove the same point&quot;, and your interpretation of that is to assume I'm saying the only way is to be a caster?&nbsp; I'm literally saying the opposite with what you quoted.&nbsp; That there are many non magical feats that prove the same point.Now I did say earlier that if you want an ability that replicates spells but want to call it something else but does the exact same thing, then you should learn magic (because that's literally the purpose of magic).&nbsp; But that's not the same as saying you have to learn magic to have any sort of out of combat functionality.&nbsp; I even gave an example of how when I converted my halfling f/t from 1e, I chose the urchin background (skills) and dungeon delver (feat at level 4) and skulker (feat at level 6) as a champion fighter and he played exactly like the f/t from his 1e days.&nbsp; That right there is a clear example of having a champion single class fighter with a lot of out of combat proficiency, second only to a devoted rogue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7828099, member: 15700"] No it's not. If no class as it's core is mechanically simple, how can you have a mechanically simpler option? Subclasses add features, not take them away. If the [I]core [/I]fighter is complex, then there is no option for all of the players out there who want a simpler mundane fighter. There are many of said people. I'm one of them. And we gave our survey feedback, which Mearls and co saw and knew that their design goal needed to include that option. It was a design goal to have a simpler mechanical class. That was one of the requirements of the game's design. So it's not false. It's true. The foundation (the class) must be mechanically simple. From there you can add complexity via subclass features, feats, etc. My answer to their comment (saying I'm relying on a magical feat) was "good thing there tons of other (non magical) feats that prove the same point", and your interpretation of that is to assume I'm saying the only way is to be a caster? I'm literally saying the opposite with what you quoted. That there are many[I] non magical [/I]feats that prove the same point. Now I did say earlier that if you want an ability that replicates spells but want to call it something else but does the exact same thing, then you should learn magic (because that's literally the purpose of magic). But that's not the same as saying you have to learn magic to have any sort of out of combat functionality. I even gave an example of how when I converted my halfling f/t from 1e, I chose the urchin background (skills) and dungeon delver (feat at level 4) and skulker (feat at level 6) as a champion fighter and he played exactly like the f/t from his 1e days. That right there is a clear example of having a champion single class fighter with a lot of out of combat proficiency, second only to a devoted rogue. [/QUOTE]

Verification