Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7098314" data-attributes="member: 5142">I (tentatively) like the idea giving the Fighter more exclusive fighting styles as they level, but I am less enthusiastic about what I quoted here. This proposed &quot;solution&quot; resembles the advanced &quot;solution&quot; to the 3E Fighter's problem too eerily, which led to feat bloat (and an associated power creep) and a few other issues. Or to go back to Mearls's design goals for the fighter, why am I picking the Fighter to be Beowulf and not the Barbarian, especially if the Fighter is supposed to be ripping off Grendel's arm but the Barbarian could arguably do it better? -------- All that said, I'm less interested in the debate of power levels between the fighter and associated classes. It's a bit too white room for my tastes. The discussion on the fighter's &quot;story&quot; and &quot;fantasy,&quot; however, does interest me. A few people talked about the failure of the fighter in terms of their lack of story identity, including Mike Mearls himself. I happen to agree on that front, which is perhaps one reason why I have rarely - and I do stress rarely - seen fighters played in my D&amp;D groups. Sure, they may represent a &quot;blank slate,&quot; but that can also work against them, as was the case in my groups. There has not really been anything about fighters that have &quot;sparked&quot; a story or character. Again, I'm not saying that this is universal - if the fighter is one of the more popular classes, then truly something must be working right - but, rather, that this is my own circumstantial experience with fighters among my play groups. I agree with the earlier poster who talked about the problem exists if it's perceived to exist, but not otherwise. In this case, the perceived problem appears to be affecting the individuals in my groups. It's not as if fighting types are problems for them. I have seen them pick rangers, paladins, barbarians, and other gishes. Just not fighters. In particular, I find the argument in favor of the fighter's &quot;blank slate&quot; status somewhat perplexing. It seems as if we take the fighter's lack of identity, story, or fantasy as a given and treat it as a privilege rather than a problem. But if having a &quot;blank slate&quot; is such a privilege, then why is that &quot;privilege&quot; only given to the fighter? Why just the fighter? Why not the mage, rogue, or cleric? Why do we want &quot;blank slates&quot; for the fighter but not want one for the wizard? Surely, there would be people who would want open-ended mages without stories too, if being a &quot;blank slate&quot; is truly as liberating as people claim. But this &quot;appeal&quot; only really surfaces when it comes to the fighter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7098314, member: 5142"] I (tentatively) like the idea giving the Fighter more exclusive fighting styles as they level, but I am less enthusiastic about what I quoted here. This proposed "solution" resembles the advanced "solution" to the 3E Fighter's problem too eerily, which led to feat bloat (and an associated power creep) and a few other issues. Or to go back to Mearls's design goals for the fighter, why am I picking the Fighter to be Beowulf and not the Barbarian, especially if the Fighter is supposed to be ripping off Grendel's arm but the Barbarian could arguably do it better? -------- All that said, I'm less interested in the debate of power levels between the fighter and associated classes. It's a bit too white room for my tastes. The discussion on the fighter's "story" and "fantasy," however, does interest me. A few people talked about the failure of the fighter in terms of their lack of story identity, including Mike Mearls himself. I happen to agree on that front, which is perhaps one reason why I have rarely - and I do stress [I]rarely[/I] - seen fighters played in my D&D groups. Sure, they may represent a "blank slate," but that can also work against them, as was the case in my groups. There has not really been anything about fighters that have "sparked" a story or character. Again, I'm not saying that this is universal - if the fighter is one of the more popular classes, then truly something must be working right - but, rather, that this is my own circumstantial experience with fighters among my play groups. I agree with the earlier poster who talked about the problem exists if it's perceived to exist, but not otherwise. In this case, the perceived problem appears to be affecting the individuals in my groups. It's not as if fighting types are problems for them. I have seen them pick rangers, paladins, barbarians, and other gishes. Just not fighters. In particular, I find the argument in favor of the fighter's "blank slate" status somewhat perplexing. It seems as if we take the fighter's lack of identity, story, or fantasy as a given and treat it as a privilege rather than a problem. But if having a "blank slate" is such a privilege, then why is that "privilege" only given to the fighter? Why just the fighter? Why not the mage, rogue, or cleric? Why do we want "blank slates" for the fighter but not want one for the wizard? Surely, there would be people who would want open-ended mages without stories too, if being a "blank slate" is truly as liberating as people claim. But this "appeal" only really surfaces when it comes to the fighter. [/QUOTE]

Verification