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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9151539" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I don't think getting your opponents to pick different words to describe their position in your realism->versimilitude->groundedness schema is victory. No one has changed their mind about what they want, they're just twisting their language to whatever they think best express it and they can get away with.Plus the supernatural/transmundane difference you call out is just more of the same. A magic->supernatural->exceptional treadmill isn't going to serve the fighter any better. The keeper who think figure means normal will continue to object to it doing anything behind that point, and continue to be the same people either unswayed by arguments about balance, or unable to conceive of the actual utility provided by casters.If you interrogate what these conceptions of mundane classes are, instead of complaining about each edge case (looking at you hit points), it's not actually that hard to get to series of design goals that let you have a melee combatant class whole satisfying them.I just don't think "having a fighter class" actually is an important design goal comparatively. We've explored every way to get there: embrace narrative mechanics, place sharp limits on your explicitly supernatural character's utility, or abandon interclass balance. If you can't stomach one of those as a design constraint you can't have a fighter, and we continue to circle from one of those to the next while the fighter abides. I'd like to get off the ride, but most everyone seems to prefer to pick one of those to champion instead.</blockquote>

Verification