Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8550012" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That's...really, really awful design. "Just don't use those things, and everything is fine!" That's a straight-up Oberoni fallacy. "If you don't use the rules that might cause problems, then there are no problems!" does not actually demonstrate that there are no problems.Well...the thing you offered isn't actually a compromise as far as I'm concerned. "Just use spells but like, they're not magical" is literally just telling me to play the game that currently exists, but Think Different™ about it.Because doing anything deeper than wants is very difficult--it involves actual game design, and I'm not interested in putting in several hours' work to get possibly-maybe-I'm-not-sure design mockups that will then--guaranteed, absolutely 0 question--get ripped into by critics as horrible awful rotten garbage destroying the game. I've done that song and dance enough times, I'm not doing it again, no matter how genially-worded the request is.As for the other bit there, it's not so much what I (or any specific person) "deserves," but rather, what the game itself offers or promises. The game's class options are like a menu, where every item is priced equally, but some items are full meals, and others are just some slices of steak (no sauce, no sides, no breadsticks, no included drink, JUST steak and water)...and not even steak where you decide how it's cooked, you get whatever the chef serves you. Steak can be lovely, and provides a great simple protein option, but pricing literally just sliced steak at the same price as lobster thermidor with your choice of sides, complimentary drink, and unlimited clam chowder and breadsticks, while pretending that all the options are equivalent, is misleading the customer. Either spell it out for all to see so we know exactly what we'll get--that the steak is simply less food for the money--or let the steak have some simple sides and maybe a drink.Curious that you gave this a counter-counter-counter, whereas you did not do that for any of the previous things.Going through the list: Half-casters are not a compromise, because they are still casters, and because they are other classes, not Fighter. Multiclassing is not a compromise because that isn't Fighter, and ESPECIALLY if it makes you a caster. Rogue isn't a compromise because it's not Fighter, nor is Monk (though that also because it's still blatantly "magical" albeit not casting spells, due to Ki, which the game expressly says is magic). Loose lore is not a compromise because you're still using magic, you've just given it a new name. Feats could be a compromise, but fall hilariously short for anything except...wait for it...the ones that give you supernatural powers.That is why this improvement is so important. Literally zero of the "compromises" you've provided are ACTUAL compromises, because they still leave the Fighter in the dust. I don't even like playing Fighters in most games, and I'm still willing to die on this hill (I vastly prefer Paladins when I want someone beefy, though I also prefer Paladins that are supernatural but do not cast spells, because spells feel wildly out of touch with the flavor and narrative of what a Paladin is.) An actual compromise is one that gives actually specifically Fighters, not some other class, some meaningful inherent utility, even if it remains clearly short of what others can achieve.If I got truly everything I wanted, Fighters (and Rogues, for that matter) would have the ability to do things that are legit genuinely impossible in our world, because they're Just That Good--what I call the "transmundane," as they have reached such superlative mundane skill that it begins to bleed into the supernatural. A thief so skilled she can steal the color of a dapper swain's eyes; a warrior so dedicated his blade can harm abstractions; a commander so persuasive he can convince a demon to surrender or a pacifistic angel to take up arms; a deadeye so sharp, she can hit two targets in opposite directions with a single arrow. All of them Beyond The Impossible, and yet never using even the smallest bit of "magic"--because the world is just THAT fantastical.(Obviously, all of these are "very high-level characters doing ridiculously badass things," e.g. this is meant to compare to the upper echelons of Wizard and Cleric powers where they can alter reality and bring the dead back to life with no restrictions other than old age. Early on, these deeds should be closer to full mundanity, both to emphasize the character's growth over time, and to feed the explicit notion that these are seemingly "mundane" actions that can eventually transcend mundanity and become legends-alive, walking myths.)Perhaps this helps explain why literally nothing of the things you've suggested is even remotely close to a "compromise" for me. I've already gone to the maximum compromise I'm willing to accept: Fighters getting more baked-in utility stuff so they have something meaningful to contribute, even if it's unlikely to be dramatic or flashy. Note the difference between "unlikely to be" and "effectively requires DM contrivance": it is unlikely that being able to break physical objects a la DW's Bend Bars, Lift Gates is going to matter overmuch in a (D&D) world where you're adventuring alongside a 10th-level Wizard and a 10th-level Cleric, but I straight-up don't believe that being able to jump 5 extra feet is going to matter in said world, unless the DM has actively contrived a situation where nothing else will suffice.And that's...another thing. I gave Bend Bars, Lift Gates as an example of something like what I'm looking for, though with the caveat that I recognize the flaws of dropping one game's design elements into another without careful thought. Isn't that exactly what you just asked for? It's an example of the goal, just from another system and thus inappropriate for direct transfer. Like trying to copy idioms literally from one language to another. E.g. "[costar] un ojo de la cara" is literally "[to cost] an eye of the face," which just sounds odd to an English speaker, but it's essentially a perfect match for the native English idiom "[to cost] an arm and a leg." I recognized that Bend Bars, Lift Gates may be an idiom, or contain idioms, of Dungeon World that don't exist in 5e, so it should be understood in a meaning-for-meaning sense, not a perfect copy.Then why did you even start this conversation, or this thread overall? If talking about this stuff is a distraction from important social issues, why did you create the thread and specifically ask for people to contribute to it? I responded to the invitation provided. This sounds to me like an excellent reason to never have done it in the first place, if you're actually serious about this as a criticism of others' arguments.In an echo of your own thoughts: not to sound cold, but this sounds a heck of a lot more like "there are starving children in Africa, eat your dinner" than an actual argument and response. Selectively applied to discussions you just don't feel like having. "Don't ask for changes to martials--we need to focus on marginalized groups, not get divided over class design things! Also, who wants to talk about class design?"</blockquote>

Verification