Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6662835" data-attributes="member: 22779">Nope, there's nothing wrong with one or the other model.&nbsp; But, why should the models be an either/or here?&nbsp; I can certainly specialise my wizard at chargen - choose Sorcerer or Warlock.&nbsp; And, then afterwards, I get to specialise again through my spell selection.Why not add that level of breadth to fighters?&nbsp; In answer to you question, I'd say that the best of both worlds is to give the option of broader or narrower to all class types.Actually, that's part of the problem.&nbsp; Fighter's don't have broad options for how it fights.&nbsp; You choose your specialisation at chargen, choose your weapons at chargen, and that's pretty much the sum total of decision points for the life of that character.&nbsp; If you choose Protection based sword and board fighters, you can't really pick up two weapon fighting and archery style later on down the line.&nbsp; You do get to pick one extra style at 10th (?), but, that's a pretty pale number of choices compared to any caster who can change its specialisation every day and add additional depth to those choices every level with additional spells.&nbsp; Heck, wizards don't even need to wait for new levels.&nbsp; If they find a spell book, they get to add new choices right away.I mentioned earlier about a fighter being able to change its specialisation after a long rest with the idea that the fighter knows all specialisations at chargen, but can only focus on one at a time.&nbsp; It was a rough idea and certainly not without bumps.&nbsp; But, funnily enough, people can't wrap their heads around the fighter deciding that today he's fighting Capa Vera, and tomorrow he's doing Drunken Master, but have no problem with the wizard completely changing his entire suite of options every 8 hours.Magic must be pretty darn easy to learn.And that's not the issue.&nbsp; I agree, fighter should be one of, if not the, simplest option in the game.&nbsp; Fantastic.&nbsp; But, why can't we have a simple fighter alongside a complex one.&nbsp; One thing that Essentials 4e did prove is that you can change up the options of a character without changing the power levels.&nbsp; Essentials fighters were far, far simpler than PHB fighters, but, neither was stronger than the other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6662835, member: 22779"] Nope, there's nothing wrong with one or the other model. But, why should the models be an either/or here? I can certainly specialise my wizard at chargen - choose Sorcerer or Warlock. And, then afterwards, I get to specialise again through my spell selection. Why not add that level of breadth to fighters? In answer to you question, I'd say that the best of both worlds is to give the option of broader or narrower to all class types. Actually, that's part of the problem. Fighter's don't have broad options for how it fights. You choose your specialisation at chargen, choose your weapons at chargen, and that's pretty much the sum total of decision points for the life of that character. If you choose Protection based sword and board fighters, you can't really pick up two weapon fighting and archery style later on down the line. You do get to pick one extra style at 10th (?), but, that's a pretty pale number of choices compared to any caster who can change its specialisation every day and add additional depth to those choices every level with additional spells. Heck, wizards don't even need to wait for new levels. If they find a spell book, they get to add new choices right away. I mentioned earlier about a fighter being able to change its specialisation after a long rest with the idea that the fighter knows all specialisations at chargen, but can only focus on one at a time. It was a rough idea and certainly not without bumps. But, funnily enough, people can't wrap their heads around the fighter deciding that today he's fighting Capa Vera, and tomorrow he's doing Drunken Master, but have no problem with the wizard completely changing his entire suite of options every 8 hours. Magic must be pretty darn easy to learn. And that's not the issue. I agree, fighter should be one of, if not the, simplest option in the game. Fantastic. But, why can't we have a simple fighter alongside a complex one. One thing that Essentials 4e did prove is that you can change up the options of a character without changing the power levels. Essentials fighters were far, far simpler than PHB fighters, but, neither was stronger than the other. [/QUOTE]

Verification