Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6070235" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think the core issue here is different people really want different things from the fighter and from the game at this point. The more we try to paint each other's preferences in unflattering lights (i.e. "boring", "unrealistic", "unfun", "outdated", "easy-mode", etc) or question the authenticity of their stance the less progress we make in the discussion. Wanting an AEDU framework, or wanting something that achieves many of the same goals is a perfectly acceptible point of view. By the same token, wanting the game to return to form and have wizards that are vancian and fighters that are like fighters in the first three editions, is also a perfectly acceptible point of view. The problem isn't that one stance is objectively superior to the other, it is that these two positions are largely incompatible. I genuinely want the game to go back to its 2E-3E state and work from there to make some marginal improvements (more than we saw in pathfinder, but nothing that radically alters the structure of the game for me). I never had a huge problem with fighters being boring or anything like that, but I would like to see tighter math around them, and a fine tuned set of maneuvers (perhaps based around the maneuvers in the 2E complete fighter but updated, refined and balanced). For me, the fighter doesn't need special powers, he just needs to be the best at all the mundane things other people can try to do. A wizard can try to swing a sword, but shouldn't be as good at it as a fighter. A wizard can try to parry a blow, but should be awful at it compared to a fighter. I think the trick is to bake into the raw numbers something that sets the fighter apart and makes him the ideal choice in certain situations. But I don't want this to go in reverse because to me mundane and magic are fundamentally different. A fighter can't attempt a spell for example. That is just what I would like to see. I understand that lots of folks really liked AEDU, and want to see how stuff like that can work in the game. nothing wrong with that at all, it just isn't the kind of D&D I have much interest in playing. I am certainly not a grognard. I play all kinds of modern games. But with D&D, I found I enjoyed myself playing them right up to edition 4. My reaction, at so many different points trying to read through and play 4E was just dissapointment pretty consistently. Something about that edition just sucked the fun out for me personally. So I would really like them to get as far away from that as possible. And I suspect people who were fond of AEDU feel quite the opposite of how feel. So that seems to be the heart of the problem here when you start trying to address fighters for an edtiion that is meant to unite all players. I am not saying this to stir up more debate on these issues, just lay out my preferences and feelings for what what I am about to suggest. It is interesting to me that, in many ways, the edition wars have gotten worse again since the announcement of 5E. People are clearly passionate and clearly their points of view do not align, particularly around fighters and wizards. I don't know about anyone else, but I find these sorts of discussions exhausting at this point. The more I think about it. The more I feel having two or even three editions at once ( a bit like we had in the 80s and early 90s) would possibly be the way for them to go. I think the preferences are so all over the map, that this core game is going to be too compromised for all of our sakes. Better to focus a bit, since the divide is there and isn't going away. Break D&D players into two or three groups and give them what they want.</blockquote>

Verification