Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6658491" data-attributes="member: 22779">That's true if you include the Epic rules.  Fair enough.  So, basically, the idea that the game went 1-20 has never actually been true in any edition has it?-----Side note.  I LOVE the fact that [MENTION=6777078]RotGrub[/MENTION] presents a variant on healing that is virtually IDENTICAL to the variants presented for 4e healing, but, apparently were never good enough for 4e play, but, are exactly what is needed to make 5e feel more gritty.  The more things change...------Look, it's fairly simple.  The reason people have issues with the fighter is the same reason that people have ALWAYS had issues with fighters.  They're too simple.  Going all the way back to OD&D, every single rules supplement has added complexity to fighters.  Once upon a time, all weapons did the same damage.  So, they came up with different damage expressions for weapons which made fighters in particular more complex since they were the ones most likely to use multiple different weapons.  Then 1e comes along and fighters (and fighter types, there was even less differentiation then) got multiple attacks based on level and weapon vs armour tables.  Then the Unearthed Arcana 1e comes along and you get Weapon Specialisation.  2e brings in the idea of Two Weapon Fighting as a specialisation (it did exist in 1e, but, it was fairly hard to use) and suddenly you had sword and board and TWF floating around.  Then 3e comes along and brings in a boat load of feats with which to differentiate fighters.  One fighter might go Improved Trip (meaning he couldn't dump stat Int) while another might go Power Attack/Cleave.  With a feat every two levels (or more sometimes) and some 3000 feats, you had options galore.4e ramped up complexity even more.  Fighters had powers (and a choice of a boatload of powers at each level) plus tactical options like marking and whatnot.  Again, this isn't really new, just a continuation of a trend that was thirty years old by this time.5e has moved away from powers and greatly reduced the complexity of fighters.  For some, that's a good thing.  Fighters are now the "basic" class you can hand to just about anyone and they can play and play effectively.  Very similar to a 1e or Basic D&D fighter.  Newbie at your table?  Hand him/her a fighter and you're good to go.  For those who want the increased complexity though, they're left in the cold.  For those who want a fighter who is just as complex as a wizard, which is what a 4e fighter, and sometimes a 3e fighter too, is, there's no real option to ramp up the complexity.If you want to play a complex sword swinger, you have to go with a partial caster class.  Either Eldritch Knight for straight fighter, or paladin or ranger.  For those who want a fighter that has half a dozen mechanically spelled out options at any given time, it doesn't exist in 5e.  I think that's the source of many of the complaints here.  The fighter is just too simple for those who want to play a straight fighter and not a fighter/caster.</blockquote>

Verification