Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bert1001 fka bert1000" data-source="post: 9143165" data-attributes="member: 7029588">I haven't seen anyone that wants a Mythic Martial at higher levels that wouldn't be satisfied with an entirely new class called something else AND keeping the existing Fighter as is?&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; No one I've seen is taking that line in the sand?&nbsp;&nbsp; In fact, I think it's preferable to most mythic martial supporters at this point to have a separate class.The new class can't be a compromise class, however.&nbsp;&nbsp; You know, a new class built by people who don't see the reason for a new class and want to hamper it by starting with the Fighter as a balanced base instead of the Wizard, limiting the mechanics that can be used, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; I see a lot of push back on this.So are you saying you will be ok with a new Mythic Martial class that is no more powerful and versatile than the Wizard existing in D&amp;D, as long as the current Fighter is also available?If you are, then no problem.&nbsp; Both sides can be happy.If you are saying that even if the existing Fighter is available, this new class will step on your toes and hurt a large portion of the gaming population (which some people have said in these threads), then I call hooey.Ban it from your game for preference reasons and your table goes on like it always has.In situations where it is not banned then 1 of 3 things will happen:1) some people will play the Fighter or the Mythic Martial depending on preference .&nbsp;&nbsp; great more options and more people happy2) the majority of people will play the Mythic Martial instead of the Fighter because the Fighter really was underpowered, Mythic Martial is a preferred aesthetic, or a combination of both.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; great, we found out this is what most people wanted all along3) no one plays the Mythic Martial.&nbsp;&nbsp; Not so great, as we wasted some resources.&nbsp;&nbsp; but certainly doesn't hurt or step on anyone's feet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bert1001 fka bert1000, post: 9143165, member: 7029588"] I haven't seen anyone that wants a Mythic Martial at higher levels that wouldn't be satisfied with an entirely new class called something else AND keeping the existing Fighter as is? No one I've seen is taking that line in the sand? In fact, I think it's preferable to most mythic martial supporters at this point to have a separate class. The new class can't be a [I]compromise class[/I], however. You know, a new class built by people who don't see the reason for a new class and want to hamper it by starting with the Fighter as a balanced base instead of the Wizard, limiting the mechanics that can be used, etc. I see a lot of push back on this. So are you saying you will be ok with a new Mythic Martial class that is no more powerful and versatile than the Wizard existing in D&D, as long as the current Fighter is also available? If you are, then no problem. Both sides can be happy. If you are saying that even if the existing Fighter is available, this new class will step on your toes and hurt a large portion of the gaming population (which some people have said in these threads), then I call hooey. Ban it from your game for preference reasons and your table goes on like it always has. In situations where it is not banned then 1 of 3 things will happen: 1) some people will play the Fighter or the Mythic Martial depending on preference . great more options and more people happy 2) the majority of people will play the Mythic Martial instead of the Fighter because the Fighter really was underpowered, Mythic Martial is a preferred aesthetic, or a combination of both. great, we found out this is what most people wanted all along 3) no one plays the Mythic Martial. Not so great, as we wasted some resources. but certainly doesn't hurt or step on anyone's feet. [/QUOTE]

Verification