Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bert1001 fka bert1000" data-source="post: 9065129" data-attributes="member: 7029588">Completely agree.   Don't get it either.  But to be fair, this isn't an EVERYONE issue.  As you can see if you read through the recently closed thread, the "your ruining my fun by having an option I don't like" crowd does seem to be predominately on the anti-mythic martial side.I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any mythic martial fans say it's important to limit other options or take away current options. In fact, the mythic martial fans posting that I've seen seem quite happy to:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">keep the current classes as is or let the "I'd rather buff up the mundane Fighter a little instead" crowd work on that version as an alternative</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">create a new class that isn't called Fighter if needed</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">put this new class in an optional book</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">make sure the new class is no more powerful or versatile than the current Wizard</li> </ul>I'm fine having both options in one class and certainly think it's possible, but also fine not if that is better for some folks.I don't think it's trivial design to do well, but this has always been a choice not to add it.   And like you, I really don't get the reasons why having more options (without taking away current options) kills the game for some folks.</blockquote>