Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5927961" data-attributes="member: 7006">There's a couple issues at play here in terms of giving fighters extra "stuff", and each of them should be separated from each other before deciding what to go with.* Unique fighting abilities (feats) versus universal fighting abilities (feats)* Simple fighters versus complex fightersThese are two different issues, and both need to be figured out before you can start solving the problem.As far as the first one... it really comes down to a disagreement between playstyle.  Half the people want Fighters to be special combatants who know a bunch of esoteric combat maneuvers that no one else can do (the 'No' to a second Theme crowd, since Themes can be taken by anybody)... and half the people see combat maneuvers as mundane, non-magical abilities that should be allowed by anyone to train in regardless of their class (the 'no special fighter abilities' crowd.)I can understand the disagreement.  Since combat maneuvers (gained via feat) do not require any special magical connection to gods or esoteric arcane power... anyone theoretically should be able to learn how to smash someone in the face with a shield and push them back.  The only downside is that it makes the Fighter class as a whole seem less interesting than the other three, because they don't get anything "unique" that only they can do.  They might be better at doing the job than anyone else... but it's still a job that anyone can do.What's the answer?  Dunno.  For my money... my default answer whenever the question of "uniqueness" comes up is always to say that if a DM wants some ability to be unique in his game, then he should just rule that certain things are not allowed to be taken by just anyone.  Certain themes are only allowed to be taken by certain classes.  So that even if the book says that any class could be a Slayer... in his game only Fighters can.Of course... that argument always devolves into individual posters not wanting to have they themselves restrict something that the book allows... but just want the book to restrict it for them.  That way "there can't be any arguments or expectations from their players".Then in terms of the simple vs complex argument... the thing to remember is that there WILL BE a complex Fighter.  It's coming.  It's not here yet, but the tactics module is being worked on and it will be soon.  So whatever gets added to the Fighter, you can rest assured, complexity will be an option.  So the question comes down to whether "giving the fighter more stuff" should be just additional number inflation (which works fine for simple or complex fighters), or actual maneuvers that make the fighter more complex to a certain extent (as any additional maneuver, like a stance, makes something more complex by default), but in the grand scheme of complexity is still actually so simple that it could be considered a simple class.  Of which Stances have been shown to probably fall into that category.A Fighter with a Stance is technically more complex than one without... but still does not move the Fighter out of the "Simple" class designation when compared to the other classes.</blockquote>

Verification