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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5947715" data-attributes="member: 87792">I have no problem with the idea of a simple class - in fact I think the single biggest failing of 4e pre-essentials was that it didn't have one.  However we had eight years and two editions (3.0 and 3.5) of Fighters Don't Get Good Stuff - this is not acceptable to me.  The fighter is probably the single biggest archetype in fantasy fiction and I am not prepared to accept that it should be the weakest as well.Especially not when the playtest fighter mechanically sucks - it does half of one point more damage per attack than the warpriest once you pair up the weapons and strength.  The rest is all illusion.I've no objection to there being a simple fighter.  But I want two conditions to hold.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The fighter should be the best there is at what he does</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There should be simple non-fighters so it's not just "fighters are for idiots".</li> </ol>1 is only marginally true - once you cut through the mechanical sleight of hand the warpriest does almost exactly as much damage, all else being equal.  (+4 to damage vs Crusader's Strike, +1 to hit vs +1 AC, and offensive theme vs defensive theme).  Not acceptable.2 is doable.  We have a simple spellcaster in 4e - the Elementalist Sorceror who gets a grand total of two attack spells (elemental lance and elemental blast of their chosen element) and occasionally intensifies them.  I want to give newbies elementalists at least as much as I want to give them fighters.  Give me a spellcaster for starting players.</blockquote>

Verification