Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6805957" data-attributes="member: 37579">A lot of proponents for a more complex fighter either mean:a) a fighter that is balanced with the wizardor b) a fighter with powers like 4eI'm not sure a) is as necessary as the power level of the fighter in terms of damage is closer to the wizard, and they have some utility though tools, extra skills, or feats of strength. And wizards are just less OP in general. Fighters are pretty good as tanks or strikers, and flexible being able to be swashbucklers, archers, or brutes. That leaves b) and I'm not sure emulating the design of a former edition is desirable. They moved away from that design for a reason; building a subclass to be more like 2e would be equally odd. That said, there are some people who want a more complex character but also want to play an archtypal fighter. Which is odd, and is like arguing for a simpler wizard for those people who want to play an archetypal wizard without the complexity or spell memorization. Not all classes appeal to every player. That's a feature/bug of most editions of D&amp;D. A fighter-esque class that is more complex would be interesting. I've said there could be a class that is to the battle master like the wizard is to the eldritch knight. The warlord has been proposed as this, being the full maneuver or 1/2 maneuver class to the BM's 1/3rd maneuver. But with superiority dice text excluded from the SRD this seems unlikely as an option...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6805957, member: 37579"] A lot of proponents for a more complex fighter either mean: a) a fighter that is balanced with the wizard or b) a fighter with powers like 4e I'm not sure a) is as necessary as the power level of the fighter in terms of damage is closer to the wizard, and they have some utility though tools, extra skills, or feats of strength. And wizards are just less OP in general. Fighters are pretty good as tanks or strikers, and flexible being able to be swashbucklers, archers, or brutes. That leaves b) and I'm not sure emulating the design of a former edition is desirable. They moved away from that design for a reason; building a subclass to be more like 2e would be equally odd. That said, there are some people who want a more complex character but also want to play an archtypal fighter. Which is odd, and is like arguing for a simpler wizard for those people who want to play an archetypal wizard without the complexity or spell memorization. Not all classes appeal to every player. That's a feature/bug of most editions of D&D. A fighter-esque class that is more complex would be interesting. I've said there could be a class that is to the battle master like the wizard is to the eldritch knight. The warlord has been proposed as this, being the full maneuver or 1/2 maneuver class to the BM's 1/3rd maneuver. But with superiority dice text excluded from the SRD this seems unlikely as an option... [/QUOTE]

Verification