Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nergal Pendragon" data-source="post: 6502133" data-attributes="member: 6777649">Or even if you put most or all of your feats toward it... As much as I love that edition and as much as Pathfinder improved it, I really have to admit that the 3E/Pathfinder fighter is pretty near useless as a class. That's one of the things 4E got right, and which I am happy to see passed on to 5E.The warlock was trying to be something the wizard wasn't: An arcane class with unending arcane power that didn't run out of its main power. It was during that period where WotC was releasing classes like crazy; IIRC, there's a class around the same time that operated similar to the 4E warlord.And, I'll agree it was easier to express using 4E words. Most of the classes were. But, unfortunately, presentation is everything; while WotC may not have wanted to create an idea they were completely eliminating options, the words they chose for 4E created the appearance they were in the minds of some. They changed the way people approached the game and thought about classes. This isn't a bad thing; it gets people to think about what they're actually doing in combat. It just didn't translate into class selection in 5E and wasn't part of class selection before.To be fair, 3E wasn't perfect because it took the existing roles and turned the "thief" section of the classical four into the "oddball" section. The warlock was definitely arcane, but the monk tended to be more of an oddball class; it acted like a martial, except it didn't share many traits with martials. Bards also tended towards the oddball category. It didn't help that the oddball classes tended towards very niche abilities. I heard that 4E actually struggled with classifying some of them because of this, which is another reason why the 4E roles didn't transition to 5E.Can you make a 4E fighter into a controller on par with a primary controller? You can with 5E. From what I've heard from a lot of 4E vets, you can't do that with 4E with anything resembling ease, yet with 5E that ease exists and isn't archetype dependent (4 attacks using a bow at fifth level is archetype-independent and allows you to hit a lot of enemies).Which existed prior to 4E as well. 3.5, 3.0, and 2E optimization discussions put massive amounts of time and math into figuring out what options were best. And it only got worse when it came to the video games, as there are massive guides out about how to powergame those. People were very, very much into the idea of discussing tactics... 4E just simplified the conversation so everyone could join in with ease. 5E appears to be trying to keep that simplification without trying to outright put classes into roles, and so far it looks like they have relatively succeeded. I'm hoping they keep it up.Yes, I saw that on the first page. I also intended to give you experience with how you handled them, but was waiting on a timer to run down and forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me of that.There, done. You hopefully got the notification for it before I even finished this post.Yes, that does happen. It happens in everything. I won't state I am innocent of it; I know I'm not. I won't state you are innocent of it either, but calling up examples to prove what I am saying would not serve the purpose of the discussion and would only needlessly escalate things; you can identify a few times you know you have done it yourself, so you don't need someone else bringing them up. Unfortunately, it is human nature for people to do that; humans like to believe we know how the world works, and we don't like to be reminded we don't actually know. You can probably name real-life examples of this where it doesn't apply to gaming.Perhaps. Perhaps it wasn't needed in prior editions because classes were not as beholden to it. We know wizards could be strikers or controllers; they could also be leaders or defenders as well with the right spells. People didn't play the wizard because they wanted to be an arcane controller or even knew what a controller was; they wanted to be a wizard. For a lot of people, the idea of the wizard being a class that can cast spells to control entire groups never even really crossed their mind, even if they ended up using those tactics in actual play. They just thought, "oh, hey, magic!"4E changed that. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, it seemed like it was utterly locking roles... which meant that, for a lot of people, it did lock their roles because the primary role classification informed their thoughts about how to play the class. And even then, from what I hear from 4E vets, the edition was not forgiving for those who wanted to go outside the primary and secondary role even when they were aware they could go outside the primary role. It may just be a weakness of their builds, but I can only know the information I have at hand.Yes. Except now, there really isn't a primary role beyond what you decide it to be.</blockquote>

Verification