Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6663559" data-attributes="member: 996">That game-time limited variant would still fit the definitions of 'dissociative mechanics' used in the edition war.&nbsp;Edited back.&nbsp; You now have room to willfully misinterpret what I said as a claim no one ever complained about anything.&nbsp; Make the most of it.Yes, there were /lots/ of complaints about D&amp;D, some of them very persistent.&nbsp; But, they weren't about dissociated mechanics.&nbsp; They rand the gamut from lack of realism, to baroque mechanics, to poor balance, to failure to model genre, and on and on.&nbsp; But those complaints never conflated mere abstraction into 'dissociated mechanics' and pretended it was intolerable, not until the edition war.&nbsp;Yeah, and I appreciate your honestly in that.&nbsp; In that sense, we're really in agreement.&nbsp; We both realize that the fighter has been consistently short-changed in D&amp;D, you just find that positively desireable.&nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; Any PC might be good at that, if they have that background.&nbsp; They might be good at a lot of other things, as well, by virtue of their class, or already be good at the woodsy stuff, and be able to take another background.&nbsp;I think 'the best' isn't as definitive as it sounds.&nbsp; They're both high-DPR classes, so, really, is the Rogue, just in a very different way.&nbsp;Also not a martial class, unless you're talking about the UA variant...&nbsp;Also not a martial class.&nbsp;Given the right campaign emphasis, any class can be - class can even be irrelevant, with other RP considerations having more to do with the fun of the character.&nbsp; The 5e rogue is less marginal in combat than the AD&amp;D rogue, and actually delivers on it's non-combat abilities better than it did with 'special' abilities in AD&amp;D.&nbsp; It's about on par with the 3.x rogue, really.&nbsp; Maybe a little less stand-out, because the gap between proficient and non-proficient is narrower.&nbsp;Also, (ironically, as an archetypal 'martial artist), not a purely martial class (supernatural Ki abilities).&nbsp;Not a false statement, but a misleading one.&nbsp; The fighter has /never/ been well-balanced out of combat.&nbsp; Among the best (top 2? top 3?) in a field of 5, all of which are bad, is really not saying much.That's always been the story.&nbsp; Spells are a daily resource, whacking with a weapon or making checks are unlimited, so spells can be much more powerful.&nbsp; I know it looks, on paper, like 5e casters - relative to 3e or earlier casters - have fewer daily spell resources.&nbsp; But, they also can use those resources more efficiently.&nbsp; Neo-Vancian casting means that no slot is ever wasted due to an un-needed spell being memorized into it, for instance, and gives casters at-will spells to spam when slots aren't called for.&nbsp;Relative lack of magic items doesn't exactly hurt casters - it makes their spell resources more valuable by contrast. &nbsp;With 3.x/Pathfinder being the rest of the 'first' such editions.&nbsp; So, really, it's the second such edition - and, that, only in the sense of the semantics of the 'fighter' class label.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6663559, member: 996"] That game-time limited variant would still fit the definitions of 'dissociative mechanics' used in the edition war. Edited back. You now have room to willfully misinterpret what I said as a claim no one ever complained about anything. Make the most of it. Yes, there were /lots/ of complaints about D&D, some of them very persistent. But, they weren't about dissociated mechanics. They rand the gamut from lack of realism, to baroque mechanics, to poor balance, to failure to model genre, and on and on. But those complaints never conflated mere abstraction into 'dissociated mechanics' and pretended it was intolerable, not until the edition war. Yeah, and I appreciate your honestly in that. In that sense, we're really in agreement. We both realize that the fighter has been consistently short-changed in D&D, you just find that positively desireable. Nod. Any PC might be good at that, if they have that background. They might be good at a lot of other things, as well, by virtue of their class, or already be good at the woodsy stuff, and be able to take another background. I think 'the best' isn't as definitive as it sounds. They're both high-DPR classes, so, really, is the Rogue, just in a very different way. Also not a martial class, unless you're talking about the UA variant... Also not a martial class. Given the right campaign emphasis, any class can be - class can even be irrelevant, with other RP considerations having more to do with the fun of the character. The 5e rogue is less marginal in combat than the AD&D rogue, and actually delivers on it's non-combat abilities better than it did with 'special' abilities in AD&D. It's about on par with the 3.x rogue, really. Maybe a little less stand-out, because the gap between proficient and non-proficient is narrower. Also, (ironically, as an archetypal 'martial artist), not a purely martial class (supernatural Ki abilities). Not a false statement, but a misleading one. The fighter has /never/ been well-balanced out of combat. Among the best (top 2? top 3?) in a field of 5, all of which are bad, is really not saying much. That's always been the story. Spells are a daily resource, whacking with a weapon or making checks are unlimited, so spells can be much more powerful. I know it looks, on paper, like 5e casters - relative to 3e or earlier casters - have fewer daily spell resources. But, they also can use those resources more efficiently. Neo-Vancian casting means that no slot is ever wasted due to an un-needed spell being memorized into it, for instance, and gives casters at-will spells to spam when slots aren't called for. Relative lack of magic items doesn't exactly hurt casters - it makes their spell resources more valuable by contrast. With 3.x/Pathfinder being the rest of the 'first' such editions. So, really, it's the second such edition - and, that, only in the sense of the semantics of the 'fighter' class label. [/QUOTE]

Verification