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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6866638" data-attributes="member: 996">3.5 opened up more tactical options than power attacks, but, yes a large part of the complexity of the fighter was in planning the build.  In 3.5, it was better to start a new player who wanted a 'simple' character with a Barbarian, for instance.  Complexity was more tightly correlated with Role than with Source.  All classes got about the same number of powers, so faced comparable numbers of choices, even if they were very different choices that worked differently with their class features.  But, the Striker role was inherently simpler, Leader & Controller more complex.  And, Controller role-support was mostly in their powers (while classes of other roles tended to have their role-support in the form of class features), making controller powers more complex/powerful.  The quintessential arcane spellcaster, the Wizard, was  controller, the poster boy for martial has always been the Fighter, and was 'merely' a Defender in 4e.  Compare fighter powers to wizard powers, and, yes, the latter will be more complex. So does the Champion.  Like the Champion, the Battlemaster isn't just capable of holding it's own, it's a high-DPR character, the equivalent of a Striker in 4e. The Warlord was not a striker.  You're talking about 4 maneuvers vs 334.  So, no, it's a varied selection, but it's not a lot of the Warlord's schtick.  If the wizard only ever got 4 spells:  Sleep, Burning Hands, Shield, and Unseen Servant, it'd be a fair cross section of things the wizard could traditionally, do - offensive, control, utility and defensive spells - but it wouldn't be "a lot," just a sampling.There is no 'actual' causal chain or world, the DM is providing all that, already.  Providing it in a way that lets you riff off the player and come closer to meeting their expectationsI'd say it's a matter of making rulings in favor of fun.  That could very well mean that the players' choices really matter - a player who chooses to betray an NPC ally will get different results than one who chooses to support that ally, for instance - it could mean other choices - left or right, spiked chain or bohemian ear-spoon, etc - don't matter so much.It's taken me years to get used to using it instead of 'variants.'  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   I guess I'd define it like I would variant:  a formal, probably written, rule change that the DM uses in his campaign, typically from the beginning, or, if introduced later, with the players at least informed (if not also consenting or majority-consenting or something).</blockquote>

Verification