Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6663433" data-attributes="member: 22779">Wait, what?&nbsp; 5e is nicely balanced.&nbsp; None of the classes are head and shoulders above the others.&nbsp; Smarter people than me have done the math and the classes, by and large, come out pretty even.&nbsp; Not a big shock considering the degree of play testing that 5e went through.&nbsp; See, I want to play a fighter that is a bit more complex than a Battlemaster or a Champion.&nbsp; Someone that adds a bit of tactical complexity to the game, without massively bogging things down.&nbsp; No, I'm not interested in 4e combat, thanks.&nbsp; Too complicated and far, far too slow.&nbsp; Casters are far more complex than non-casters.&nbsp; Yet, the power levels between casters and non-casters in 5e is comparable.&nbsp; Not enough to bother me at the very least.&nbsp; Yet, despite the added complexity, casters don't play slower than non-casters.&nbsp; At least, not particularly.&nbsp; Most of the complexity is handled at level up and can fairly easily be done away from the table.&nbsp; Look, you asked the question - what is wrong with the fighter.&nbsp; You got the answer - fighters need a bit more complexity for some people.&nbsp; Apparently you were far more interested in an echo chamber where everyone pats you on the back and agrees with you.&nbsp; Sorry, but no.&nbsp; I love the fact that there is a simple fighter, but, I would like to have a more complex option too.&nbsp; I'm sorry that seems to bother you so much.&nbsp; At least you're not threatening to quit the hobby if I get an option.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; But, sheesh, why is getting a somewhat more complex fighter grounds for telling me to change editions?&nbsp; Bit of an extreme reaction no?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6663433, member: 22779"] Wait, what? 5e is nicely balanced. None of the classes are head and shoulders above the others. Smarter people than me have done the math and the classes, by and large, come out pretty even. Not a big shock considering the degree of play testing that 5e went through. See, I want to play a fighter that is a bit more complex than a Battlemaster or a Champion. Someone that adds a bit of tactical complexity to the game, without massively bogging things down. No, I'm not interested in 4e combat, thanks. Too complicated and far, far too slow. Casters are far more complex than non-casters. Yet, the power levels between casters and non-casters in 5e is comparable. Not enough to bother me at the very least. Yet, despite the added complexity, casters don't play slower than non-casters. At least, not particularly. Most of the complexity is handled at level up and can fairly easily be done away from the table. Look, you asked the question - what is wrong with the fighter. You got the answer - fighters need a bit more complexity for some people. Apparently you were far more interested in an echo chamber where everyone pats you on the back and agrees with you. Sorry, but no. I love the fact that there is a simple fighter, but, I would like to have a more complex option too. I'm sorry that seems to bother you so much. At least you're not threatening to quit the hobby if I get an option. :D But, sheesh, why is getting a somewhat more complex fighter grounds for telling me to change editions? Bit of an extreme reaction no? [/QUOTE]

Verification