Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6663403" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sigh.Look, I'm playing a Champion Fighter RIGHT NOW.&nbsp; And I like it.&nbsp; I love the fact that there is a simple fighter option.&nbsp; It's great. Just because I want X does not mean that I don't like Y.&nbsp; I LIKE 5E.&nbsp; Please stop trying to kick me off the island just because I think that adding a particular option would make the island a bit better.&nbsp; Yes, the current fighter is fine.&nbsp; But, it is pretty limited.&nbsp; It doesn't have a whole lot of complexity.&nbsp; No, we don't have a complex fighter.&nbsp; Good grief, would you compare the complexity of a Battlemaster to a wizard?&nbsp; Really?See if we can agree on this.&nbsp; If a Champion Fighter is a 1 and the most complex 5e class (say, at a guess, a wizard?&nbsp; Maybe a druid?) is a 5, where do the other classes rest?Me, I'd say a Battlemaster is a 2, the half caster combat characters like a paladin or ranger are 3's, and the full casters are either 4 (say a warlock) or a 5.&nbsp; What I want is a non-magical character that's a 3.&nbsp; Maybe edging into a 4, but, a 3 would probably make me happy.&nbsp; No I don't want to go back to 4e.&nbsp; No I don't want to switch to Pathfinder where every character is a 9 on the complexity scale.&nbsp; Good grief, I already have GURPS or various other games if I want that level of complexity.&nbsp; I want something that has a bit more breadth than a battle master.&nbsp; Something that's about as customisable and as complex as a ranger or a paladin.&nbsp; ------Hemlock, if what you say about dissociative mechanics is true, then perhaps not waving a giant freaking edition war flag in a thread might help get your point across.&nbsp; The concept of dissociative mechanics is very contested and is certainly not taken as a &quot;fact&quot; and is generally seen as just another edition war shot.&nbsp; Perhaps rephrasing your issues with the mechanics might help to not get painted with the edition warrior brush.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6663403, member: 22779"] Sigh. Look, I'm playing a Champion Fighter RIGHT NOW. And I like it. I love the fact that there is a simple fighter option. It's great. Just because I want X does not mean that I don't like Y. I LIKE 5E. Please stop trying to kick me off the island just because I think that adding a particular option would make the island a bit better. Yes, the current fighter is fine. But, it is pretty limited. It doesn't have a whole lot of complexity. No, we don't have a complex fighter. Good grief, would you compare the complexity of a Battlemaster to a wizard? Really? See if we can agree on this. If a Champion Fighter is a 1 and the most complex 5e class (say, at a guess, a wizard? Maybe a druid?) is a 5, where do the other classes rest? Me, I'd say a Battlemaster is a 2, the half caster combat characters like a paladin or ranger are 3's, and the full casters are either 4 (say a warlock) or a 5. What I want is a non-magical character that's a 3. Maybe edging into a 4, but, a 3 would probably make me happy. No I don't want to go back to 4e. No I don't want to switch to Pathfinder where every character is a 9 on the complexity scale. Good grief, I already have GURPS or various other games if I want that level of complexity. I want something that has a bit more breadth than a battle master. Something that's about as customisable and as complex as a ranger or a paladin. ------ Hemlock, if what you say about dissociative mechanics is true, then perhaps not waving a giant freaking edition war flag in a thread might help get your point across. The concept of dissociative mechanics is very contested and is certainly not taken as a "fact" and is generally seen as just another edition war shot. Perhaps rephrasing your issues with the mechanics might help to not get painted with the edition warrior brush. [/QUOTE]

Verification