Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kavon" data-source="post: 5948021" data-attributes="member: 9822">There is nothing wrong with liking the Fighter to be simple (and the Wizard etc to be complex), but there is also nothing wrong with wanting the ability to play a Fighter that is complex (or a Wizard etc that is simple).What I really have a problem with, though, is this point of view that if someone were to want a complex Fighter (or simple Wizard etc), they should just go play that other class that is also a melee combatant (or spellcaster) that has the desired level of complexity.. The problem here is that those other classes aren't the Fighter class (or Wizard class, etc).If we're going down that road, there should be a Fighter [simple] and a Fighter [complex], not just Fighter and 'that other class that is not a Fighter' (or Wizard [complex] and Wizard [simple] instead of Wizard and Warlock, or what have you).The point is easier to come to with the Wizard vs Warlock example.Let's say the Warlock (with all its niche protecting abilities and inherent flavor) was the simple arcane spellcaster.Now let's say you wanted to play a simple Wizard. But there's only a complex Wizard? Yeah, you go play that Warlock class over there, have fun with your character concept!This is not the point of the next edition of D&D, which gives people options to play the way they want, right?Having simple classes and complex classes is not the answer to this, since people need to be able to play the class they want (with all the niche specific things a class offers) regardless of complexity. Having seperate simple and complex version of the same class is stupid - just make it one class and design its options right.In a similar vein (and I've posted about this before), why does the Wizard class have to be married to the Vancian system?I can understand wanting different classes to have different spell systems to make them feel different, but I really dislike being forced into playing a class in a way that I would dislike, simply because certain people say that it should have this system of spellcasting.The Wizard, the idea of what the class is, should not equal Vancian magic just because there are people that are so used to it being so.Should the Wizard have the option to utilize the Vancian way of magic? Absolutely! Should I be forced to use Vancian magic if I want to play a learned bookish spellcaster? Let's hope not!Should the Fighter have the option to keep it simple? Absolutely.Should I be forced to play with limited options compared to other classes if I want to play a Fighter? Again, let's hope not.</blockquote>

Verification