Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8308635" data-attributes="member: 87792">So don't play one then. There are plenty of people very intimidated by too many options and who find casters a short stop to analysis paralysis especially as spells are fiddly. And plenty of people who, like me, find fighters and barbarians dull. Me? I favour fewer options but meatier ones; the warlock, monk, and artificer are my three favourite 5e classes because they are near that sweet spot for me, with the Tasha’s Ranger in fourth. Not the simple &quot;I hit it&quot; of the fighter or barbarian or the only slightly more complex &quot;I get advantage then hit it&quot;&nbsp; of the rogue. But not the &quot;15 spells at level 6&quot; of the full casters and the complexity comes from interactions and using the narrative. Does this mean I want the primary casters or simple martials to vanish? No. And one of my critiques of 4e was the lack of complexity range until near the end. One thing I want from the warlord is a more complex martial who should be trying to track the whole battle - complex in a different way from the plethora of spells of a caster. I also want a genuinely simple blasty caster (and have proposed the Arsonist Warlock) despite the fact I don't want to play one because l know people who would. So why, because you are intimidated, do you think no one should get the warlord? Should every class be made just for you?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8308635, member: 87792"] So don't play one then. There are plenty of people very intimidated by too many options and who find casters a short stop to analysis paralysis especially as spells are fiddly. And plenty of people who, like me, find fighters and barbarians dull. Me? I favour fewer options but meatier ones; the warlock, monk, and artificer are my three favourite 5e classes because they are near that sweet spot for me, with the Tasha’s Ranger in fourth. Not the simple "I hit it" of the fighter or barbarian or the only slightly more complex "I get advantage then hit it" of the rogue. But not the "15 spells at level 6" of the full casters and the complexity comes from interactions and using the narrative. Does this mean I want the primary casters or simple martials to vanish? No. And one of my critiques of 4e was the lack of complexity range until near the end. One thing I want from the warlord is a more complex martial who should be trying to track the whole battle - complex in a different way from the plethora of spells of a caster. I also want a genuinely simple blasty caster (and have proposed the Arsonist Warlock) despite the fact I don't want to play one because l know people who would. So why, because you are intimidated, do you think no one should get the warlord? Should every class be made just for you? [/QUOTE]

Verification