Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7100361" data-attributes="member: 20323">I see. To anchor this to more tangible non-imaginary people...For my n=2, I can report two players in my home group passing over the fighter in favor of a barbarian and a paladin (with a one or two level multiclass &quot;dip&quot; into fighter), respectively. I actually asked about it, and the responses I received included &quot;the fighter isn't interesting enough, and I want to do more damage&quot; and &quot;the fighter's first two levels are interesting, but after that, eh, and besides my concept really leans more towards paladin&quot;.What I found notable – and this was way prior to Mike Mearls comment on the TomeShow about fighter subclasses lacking identity – was that both of my players used the word &quot;interesting.&quot; Now, I didn't follow up on *precisely* what that means because we play together, we don't design games together... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> But that was intriguing to me.Personally, it shined a light on my own frustrations with the fighter (which is what I used to play back in AD&amp;D on the rare occasions I played), that date back to BD&amp;D. It's my favorite archetype, but it always felt like there was something missing to me. While I'm perfectly capable of saying Xeon Thoepoles, champion fighter, LN, son of the Republic, possibly son of Achilles, and rolling with that concept to the hilt, I do wonder about others who aren't such hardcore gamers...like my two friends...could the fighter be made more &quot;interesting&quot; to gamers like them? So it's not just a class to &quot;dip&quot; into?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7100361, member: 20323"] I see. To anchor this to more tangible non-imaginary people... For my n=2, I can report two players in my home group passing over the fighter in favor of a barbarian and a paladin (with a one or two level multiclass "dip" into fighter), respectively. I actually asked about it, and the responses I received included [I]"the fighter isn't interesting enough, and I want to do more damage"[/I] and [I]"the fighter's first two levels are interesting, but after that, eh, and besides my concept really leans more towards paladin"[/I]. What I found notable – and this was way prior to Mike Mearls comment on the TomeShow about fighter subclasses lacking identity – was that both of my players used the word "interesting." Now, I didn't follow up on *precisely* what that means because we play together, we don't design games together... :) But that was intriguing to me. Personally, it shined a light on my own frustrations with the fighter (which is what I used to play back in AD&D on the rare occasions I played), that date back to BD&D. It's my favorite archetype, but it always felt like there was something missing to me. While I'm perfectly capable of saying [i]Xeon Thoepoles, champion fighter, LN, son of the Republic, possibly son of Achilles[/i], and rolling with that concept to the hilt, I do wonder about others who aren't such hardcore gamers...like my two friends...could the fighter be made more "interesting" to gamers like them? So it's not just a class to "dip" into? [/QUOTE]

Verification