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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5773702" data-attributes="member: 32536">My viewpoints are not self-contradictory, thank you very much. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />And yes, I dislike the Fighter class. I don't think its cynical. After all, it has historically been both a very problematic class (it was terribly underpowered in 3E, in particular) and is very broadly designed to embody simply too many incompatible ideas. It leads directly to the frustrating issue where people will both say "Why do you want that class? Isn't that just the Fighter?" and turn around and say the next minute "I don't want my Fighter doing THAT!" especially in terms of the kinds of stuff I like to see in D&D. Put simply, it's because different archetypes should have different strengths, weaknesses, and focuses, and it is pretty much impossible to have a single class that can be easily customized to match any of those strengths and weaknesses without a lot of headaches. No matter what, characters of the same class tend to have the same basic strengths and weaknesses. They tend to have the same basic "chassis" of things like proficiencies, skills, and hitpoints. There is a clear limit on how much you can change such things within a class to the extent that I want to see them changed, unless you introduce extremely complex and bloated class specialization systems (even worse than Feats or D20 Modern Talents), which I'd rather not see.These statements of yours show exaclty how different we are. Yes, I consider many of the late 3.5E classes to be elegant, or at least more so than the 3E PHB classes. My 3.5E group completely replaced the Fighter with the three Tome of Battle classes, and it made our campaign a lot more fun. I also have no complaints about the quantity or degree of focus seen in 4E classes. I've got lots of problems with both systems, but quantity of classes is not an issue for me in the least, and I've never agreed with those who complain about an excessive number of classes.The addition of new classes in 3E and 4E was an improvement over just having the Fighter in the PHB, no question.Why not? A lot of what I've said about Fighters is also true for the generalized Wizard. I'm a big fan of the idea of creating a variety of different Wizard classes specialized in different styles, rather than a catch-all do-anything wizard. Close-combat wizard would be a great example of this.I'm fine with the Paladin and Barbarian exactly because they are not trying to be generalists. They've also established themselves fairly well as iconic classes in most of the fantasy stuff videogames, comics, and anime I'm familiar with. I see Paladins with bows as unnecessary (it is a fair disadvantage, and I see little pressure to create a class with an alternative). Also, I really like the Berserker class type, but I'm fine with dropping pointless fluff like assumptions of a different culture and illiteracy (not that 4E didn't already do that...).I don't see why we need to either artificially generalize classes that are already solid archetypes (solid archetypes that don't infringe much on others), nor do I see the need to create whole new classes for every little tiny variation.Just know that, if you are fine with the Barbarian and Paladin as they are, then understand that I'd simply like to see more classes that function with the clear role they do.gladiators-> profession, not fighting style or class (for me, at least)axe wielders -> You'd need to be clearer. Axes are valid weapons for a lot of classes.lancers -> Same as Axe above.crossbowmen -> An Archer class would be nice. Useful secondary weapon for a lot of classes.flail specialists -> Same as Axe or Lancewhip wielders -> You know, I'd like to see decent support for whips as a fighting weapon...wrestlers -> Monkmartial artists -> Monkblowgun wielders -> Meh, kinda non-iconic. Random option, maybe?boxers -> Monkknife fighters -> Rogue, at leastpeltasts -> Had to look this one up... Obsucre name for a concept I want as a class, actually. Light skirmishing non-Rogue warriors is a good concept.mounted archers -> Archer with a horse or Cavalier with a bow. Take you pick.pirates -> Profession, not class. You can have a Pirate with the Ninja class and I'd be fine with it.halbred wielders -> Same as Axe, Lance, etc...fencers -> Lightly armored melee weapon specialists.sword and board -> Same as Axe, Lance, etc...legionares -> Pretty much just your typical soldier... Solid Defender type, I guess.slingers -> Archerhoplites -> Same class as Legionnaires. Defender, then, I guess.pirates -> You said this already.muskateers -> If you mean musket-user? Archer. If you mean D'Artagnan? Same as fencer.men-at-arms -> Too vague a concept to mention.ninjas, -> Its own sneaky magic-using class.samuarii -> Depending on what you mean, either a Knight or the same class as the fencer.knights -> Defenders, same as Legionanaires, though a more Cavalier-style approach also works.florentine style fencers -> Same as normal fencer.sumo wrestlers -> Monk, if you absolutely have to...charioteers -> CavalierNope.I'd break up the Fighter into only a few others. A low-mobility, defense-focused heavy armor class that doesn't specialize in a certain weapon types and has no ranged weapons, a high-mobility, lightly armored melee class built around mobility that does specialize in particular weapon types, a low-mobility lightly armored class that specializes in ranged weapons, and a moderately armored and mobile cavalry class. Other classes, like the Monk, Barbarian (I'd prefer Berserker), and Rogue all help fill out archetypes too.Pardon me for not understanding your coding analogy (I could't code if my life depended on it), but I disagree with your reasoning. It is not lazy design at all. I merely want classes to cover reasonable archetypes and to avoid creating classes that are more generic than the norm. Many classes, like the Paladin, Barbarian, or Druid, cover a reasonable amount of ground and embody strong archetypes without crowding out others. Others, like the Fighter and Wizard, cover overly broad archetypes and do crowd out others.The problem with saying "focused on traditional constitution roles" is that creating mechanics designed to actually implement what you are talking about is far more complicated than you are admitting. And no, the solutions implemented by some of those others are not poorly implemented. Many are actually quite good.I'm actually not a fan of codifying ever last little thing as a power or such. That said, such things do go a long way towards enabling effects that are much more interesting than "Judo Throw Foe". For example, "Slash Every Foe Within 30ft to Bits Without Taking a Step" is not at all something you can say "anyone can try", but it is a very cool and fun kind of effect that deserves a spot in the game.Also, keep in mind that most of this is your reacting to my suggestion of a system where the main impressive physical feats and effects are not class based, and are instead open for people of any class to use depending on requirements.Nonsense. There is no natural association between complex power-style systems and magic at all. Something can use a power-style implementation and not be magical just as easily as something can use a simple attack-style implementation and still be magical. You are presuming things that are not true.Of course. Nope.Where does this come from? I asked for a decent mounted combat mechanic, and I asked for a decent Cavalier class to take advantage of that mechanic. I did not ask for a Cavalier who is the sole thing tied to a mounted combat mechanic which would cause problems otherwise. Where did you get this line of questioning from?  Why not? If there is demand for it (and I know there are people here who love oceanic campaigns), then why should there not be supply? Knowing full well that no one is forced to use every class in a campaign (it is, in fact, the easiest thing to exclude from any ruleset), then what does it hurt? Why should it be omitted?</blockquote>

Verification