Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6675223" data-attributes="member: 996">That's a little off.&nbsp; For one thing, you don't know it's true, all we have to go on is the stereotype of the &quot;wake me when the fight starts&quot; guy.&nbsp; For another, that's as much a ringing condemnation of the simplistic fighter as it is a rationalization for it.&nbsp; Sure, the fighter has mostly been pretty simplistic, at least prior to 3e, it was.&nbsp; That means people who might want to play an archetype handled by the fighter, but who wanted a less stultifying gaming experience, wouldn't choose it - not that people who chose it were the only ones interested in playing that range of archetypes.&nbsp; By the same token, casters have mostly been complex and frustrating to play, but that doesn't mean only people who liked that challenge wanted to play a caster archetype, just that they were the ones who could stand it.Again, you're assuming that because the class was always lacking, that it's supposed to be lacking, that no one want's a more interesting or flavorful way of approaching the wide range of heroic archetypes that no other class is suitable for (prettymuch any character in genre who doesn't cast spells, go berserk, or sneak around steeling things &amp; murdering people, has to be a fighter in 5e)&nbsp;That's what the Battlemaster is.&nbsp; In the playtest, it was called Weaponmaster for a bit, then changed to Battlemaster.&nbsp;Have to disagree strongly with that.&nbsp; Most heroic archetypes you see in the genre can't be anything but a fighter - again, because they don't cast spells, aren't berserkers, and aren't sneak-thieves/assassins - but the fighter doesn't do them justice.&nbsp; It's a rare hero who is just a melee badass or just a great archer, which is as far as you can get with a Champion of Battlemaster.&nbsp; They're DPR-optimizeable 'Strikers,' and that's it.&nbsp; You're right that there are a few flavors of melee-badassedness that do fall through the cracks between the Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk.&nbsp;Each class should probably have a fairly 'generic' sub-class as a catch-all customizeable for concepts not handled by the rest of it's sub-classes.&nbsp;For instance, they missed creating a complex fighter.&nbsp; Though the very idea that 'complex' is something to aim for is a little silly.&nbsp; When the fighter has been good, yes, it's been a little more complex:&nbsp; complex to build in 3.x, tactical complexity in 4e - but there has to be a point to the complexity.&nbsp; 5e was too focused on the 'classic game,' when the fighter was utterly simplistic, to be open to archetype ideas that might have called for any meaningful level of complexity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6675223, member: 996"] That's a little off. For one thing, you don't know it's true, all we have to go on is the stereotype of the "wake me when the fight starts" guy. For another, that's as much a ringing condemnation of the simplistic fighter as it is a rationalization for it. Sure, the fighter has mostly been pretty simplistic, at least prior to 3e, it was. That means people who might want to play an archetype handled by the fighter, but who wanted a less stultifying gaming experience, wouldn't choose it - not that people who chose it were the only ones interested in playing that range of archetypes. By the same token, casters have mostly been complex and frustrating to play, but that doesn't mean only people who liked that challenge wanted to play a caster archetype, just that they were the ones who could stand it. Again, you're assuming that because the class was always lacking, that it's supposed to be lacking, that no one want's a more interesting or flavorful way of approaching the wide range of heroic archetypes that no other class is suitable for (prettymuch any character in genre who doesn't cast spells, go berserk, or sneak around steeling things & murdering people, has to be a fighter in 5e) That's what the Battlemaster is. In the playtest, it was called Weaponmaster for a bit, then changed to Battlemaster. Have to disagree strongly with that. Most heroic archetypes you see in the genre can't be anything but a fighter - again, because they don't cast spells, aren't berserkers, and aren't sneak-thieves/assassins - but the fighter doesn't do them justice. It's a rare hero who is just a melee badass or just a great archer, which is as far as you can get with a Champion of Battlemaster. They're DPR-optimizeable 'Strikers,' and that's it. You're right that there are a few flavors of melee-badassedness that do fall through the cracks between the Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk. Each class should probably have a fairly 'generic' sub-class as a catch-all customizeable for concepts not handled by the rest of it's sub-classes. For instance, they missed creating a complex fighter. Though the very idea that 'complex' is something to aim for is a little silly. When the fighter has been good, yes, it's been a little more complex: complex to build in 3.x, tactical complexity in 4e - but there has to be a point to the complexity. 5e was too focused on the 'classic game,' when the fighter was utterly simplistic, to be open to archetype ideas that might have called for any meaningful level of complexity. [/QUOTE]

Verification