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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8552281" data-attributes="member: 7019027">I'm in support of that as well. I'm with Crimson in that I don't like Class Bloat but I don't consider a class with a unique playstyles as bloating the system. Which is where I'm at. I'm against playstyle-wizard but no-magic. I'm for no-magic martial with unique utility. I'm against changing all of the fighter, a class me and my peers enjoy. I'm for adding a new class that grants what the other side wants. I'm against classes that play identically and class bloat because that's more rules, more edge-cases, more pages in the book, and more resources put into something that functionally already exists. I'm for nonmagic martials with unique utility because I don't see any reason not to. Maybe that class chooses between Heroic and mythic and gains a random debuff based on how much they try to push themselves further. Like the mythic hero can punch sections of walls out, with a con save to avoid the incapacitated condition, and the DC scales based on how big that section of wall you'd like to destroy. Or the hero might fall prone if they try to jump farther than their normal jump distance, with a strength save to avoid that.  That's unique and interesting, maybe even pretty fun. Though I'd have to actually see it on-paper and in-action. I'm against changing the fighter because I have a blast playing it. Sometimes, I like to play the character that only has to focus on combat and don't have to buff, pre-buff, read pages of descriptions, etc. I'm okay saying "I attack with my weapon" and not have to worry about targeting the correct save, avoiding resistances, worrying about being counterspelled, or making sure an edge-case isn't affecting the spell.</blockquote>

Verification