Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9137600" data-attributes="member: 6704184">The point should be clearly stated, then. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging&nbsp; &nbsp; :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />But beyond the fact that you have for the umpteenth time made a vague claim or assertion and then huffed that someone missed your point when they didn’t divine your secret meaning exactly as you’d hoped, the point is false. The playtest is adding some stuff, cool. No one has ever opposed those things in any significant numbers, nor denied that they’d be nice, nor does their inclusion prove anything beyond “players like new things and more options and this broadens the fighter out of the box with very little increase in complexity” which no one would have debrief at any point. You’re also leaping from people generally saying, “hey that’s cool yes please” all the way across an enormous gulf to “all of this was bad before and finally the fighter will be playable”. The fighter is largely fine for most groups, and wouldn’t be the most popular class if it weren’t. The fighter has plenty of room to add some&nbsp; non-combat stuff and some tactical in-combat stuff, and dial in existing mechanics a bit more based on a decade of playtest. The two are both true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 9137600, member: 6704184"] The point should be clearly stated, then. 🤷‍♂️ But beyond the fact that you have for the umpteenth time made a vague claim or assertion and then huffed that someone missed your point when they didn’t divine your secret meaning exactly as you’d hoped, the point is false. The playtest is adding some stuff, cool. No one has ever opposed those things in any significant numbers, nor denied that they’d be nice, nor does their inclusion prove anything beyond “players like new things and more options and this broadens the fighter out of the box with very little increase in complexity” which no one would have debrief at any point. You’re also leaping from people generally saying, “hey that’s cool yes please” all the way across an enormous gulf to “all of this was bad before and finally the fighter will be playable”. The fighter is largely fine for most groups, and wouldn’t be the most popular class if it weren’t. The fighter has plenty of room to add some non-combat stuff and some tactical in-combat stuff, and dial in existing mechanics a bit more based on a decade of playtest. The two are both true. [/QUOTE]

Verification