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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5635510" data-attributes="member: 81381">I'm wondering what this signals about the essentials style fighter, and it's success, or lack therof, because despite it being used as an example in previous colums, it seems impossible under the concept as written. Either: A) Everyone has to be on the same complexity tier,  or B) Simpler characters are allowed, but just less powerful.  I can also imagine an even worse scenarion, which is  C) DMs who are fans of garbage 3e style fighters can now choose to have fighter-types be not only simplistic, but weaker than caster classes, just like in 3e- -With the addition of other modules as options, this can even lead to-  C1) Fighters in such campaigns being saddled with other rules modules to make up the power difference, despite the balance between the modules being dubious at best and the efforts at balancing being every bit as tokenistic as other attempts to suggest that 100 0 level men-at-arms really help you fight a dragon as much as being able to cast a limited wish, or, with the effective sidelining of other modules even when they are given lip service- C2) A perpetuation of the game- and comunity-damaging idea that some of the human beings at your gaming table should get to do less and have less fun than other human beings, based on wether they wanted to be a cool guy with a sword, or a cool guy with a magic wand- or perhaps based on how much 'system mastery' they posess  Of course, in theory, the final version of such a product would have even bigger damage values to bring the boring fighter option into balance with the unboring other class options, but there's nothing like that stated in the actual article.</blockquote>

Verification