Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alexemplar" data-source="post: 7252658" data-attributes="member: 6874182">Then you should probably be asking for MORE simple classes with few features outside of the combat pillar instead of piling that onto a single class.  Seems rather odd that your desire for simplicity begins and ends with the guy who's approach to combat is fighting like your usual fantasy hero, without spells and magic.  Because my character concept in a social game might involve being an aristocratic warrior that doesn't have supernatural powers?  Actually, in 3e I would have selected a Swashbuckler or Swordsage and in 4e, I would have definitely gone with a Warlord.  But can you not see the issue with that statement?  It's like saying, "Well if you're playing in a combat heavy game, then you shouldn't choose >insert other class here<."  D&D has been moving away from that kind of thinking for a while in regards to the other classes.   I'm not talking about the Champion being simple mechanically.  I understand that option and have no problem with it in and of itself.   I mean I do also feel that D&D rcould benefit from the inclusion of a "combat focused simple caster" that automatically gives you a selection of automatic magic attacks without having to deal with dozens of spell effects or mess around with spell slots....  It's that the Fighter at low levels doesn't have much to do other than fight and even when it does eventually get something else, it gets a lot less than the other classes already got and continue getting.        I know not giving the non-magical fighting classes as many or as useful non-combat abilities is a feature.  I think it's a bad feature.  My games involve more social and exploration- even in 4e where everything was supposedly about combat and I expect classes to be serviceable in all of them.  No individual character has to excel in all of them, but I expect basic character archetypes of warrior/rogue/priest/mage to be workable in all of them.  I modified the Fighter (it had a host of other issues) in 3e and welcomed the introduction of the Swashbuckler and was even more excited about the Bo9S classes- WotC responding to people who thought lack of the option was a bad feature. I didn't mind the Fighter being so straightforward in 4e because it also introduced the Warlord to fill that archetype- and was introduced as WotC's response to people who felt the lack of the option was a bad feature.   And that's just in D&D.  When I get to play and run other games, you had better believe there are all kinds of non-magical warriors with varied and utilitarian abilities all over the place.   It is my hope that- just like they did in previous editions- WotC will realize that it's a bad feature -or at least see peoples' desire for more- and introduce more. Until then I'll discuss how to modify the Fighter with others who also seem to be having the same issue and not remain silent on whether or not I consider it an issue.</blockquote>

Verification