Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8795537" data-attributes="member: 53980">Sure. Personally, I would improve the fighter while introducing a new simple class like the 4e Slayer (which was a fighter that just focused on dealing big damage and not much else). But that's a relatively unimportant distinction.Heck, I think that a basic class for all of the big 4 archetypes (warrior, rogue, priest, and mage) would be a good idea. If someone doesn't "want to manage options or having responsibility to have narrative or strategic impact" why can't they play a magic user? I'm sure there are folks out there who would like to heal or chuck fireballs without having to understand the somewhat confusing D&D spellcasting system.I think that not everyone who wants to play the martial fantasy wants to play a character with few choices and little impact. Not everyone who wants to play a spellcaster wants a complicated class with high impact. Unfortunately, the solution in many editions has been to force players who want a simple character to play a martial, while those who want more options are driven by the design to play spellcasters. Which, when you think about it, isn't a very elegant solution at all.</blockquote>