Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8754716" data-attributes="member: 87792">What sort of game are we playing?Fundamentally a complex fighter needs two things.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Options rather than just making generic attacks</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">To have to respond to an unfolding situation so the options available to the fighter are not the same every round.</li> </ol>Any fighter who has the same best choice almost every round isn't actually complex. Complexity comes from having options to weigh. The 4e fighter was a good complex one using positioning - but the 3.5 Crusader with a random selection of their maneuvers being available each round also qualifies - and works better with Theatre of the Mind. (I don't consider either of the other two Bo9S to be complex; you ran straight through their maneuvers, top to bottom much of the time).They also need one of two things:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">To be comfortably the best class at fighting in the game and able to make every other class feel inadequate in combat by comparison</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">To be able to hang with other classes out of combat by having abilities of their own that others can't match just as other classes have abilities they can't match rather than being basically a glorified commoner out of combat</li> </ol>Having both of these isn't necessary - but if classes are balanced within the combat pillar then they need to be balanced within all three pillars. What they can not be is the fighter being balanced in combat and just plain bad at social and exploration compared to other classes (which is the current situation). Do fighters need to be masters out of combat? No. But e.g. the Echo Knight has their things that no one else can match.Edit: And I've yet to see a complex Pathfinder fighter - they are in my experience just fiddly, Counting a lot of bonuses - but spamming the same attack every turn.</blockquote>

Verification