Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7813276" data-attributes="member: 996">One viable option is to simply make the more complicated stuff severable.&nbsp; For instance, you could let someone pay a 4e 'greatweapon' fighter, and just nix the encounters &amp; dailies.&nbsp; He'd be simple.&nbsp; He'd be strictly inferior.&nbsp; But he would be able to handle the Defender Role at least as well as a Companion character.&nbsp; Or, to have simple options to swap in for more complicated ones - a single 'feat package' instead of choosing a new one every level, 'pre-builds' (like pregens except the not-too-complicated stuff is left open), etc.Well, it cuts both ways, really.&nbsp; There's nothing wrong with having simple options available, if they're at least viable (which has not always been the case), there's nothing wrong with more choice-rich options, if unless they're just plain broken (which often has been the case), and the presence of both in no way prevents those interested in only one from choosing that one.Yet, /only/ the fighter got a simple option in 5e*.&nbsp; And, his choice-rich non-caster option makes, what? an additional 6 meaningful choices?The whole simple-fighter fetish seems like it's just part and parcel of the same 'Primacy of Magic' Essence-of-D&amp;D.&nbsp; A simple fighter won't rival casters in versatility, so even if he gets some big numbers, doesn't threaten the Primacy of Magic.&nbsp; It's certainly very compatible with it, whatever motivations some of its proponents may harbor. * OK, arguably the Barbarian /only/ has simple options.&nbsp; I mustn't keep forgetting about the barbarian.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7813276, member: 996"] One viable option is to simply make the more complicated stuff severable. For instance, you could let someone pay a 4e 'greatweapon' fighter, and just nix the encounters & dailies. He'd be simple. He'd be strictly inferior. But he would be able to handle the Defender Role at least as well as a Companion character. Or, to have simple options to swap in for more complicated ones - a single 'feat package' instead of choosing a new one every level, 'pre-builds' (like pregens except the not-too-complicated stuff is left open), etc. Well, it cuts both ways, really. There's nothing wrong with having simple options available, if they're at least viable (which has not always been the case), there's nothing wrong with more choice-rich options, if unless they're just plain broken (which often has been the case), and the presence of both in no way prevents those interested in only one from choosing that one. Yet, /only/ the fighter got a simple option in 5e*. And, his choice-rich non-caster option makes, what? an additional 6 meaningful choices? The whole simple-fighter fetish seems like it's just part and parcel of the same 'Primacy of Magic' Essence-of-D&D. A simple fighter won't rival casters in versatility, so even if he gets some big numbers, doesn't threaten the Primacy of Magic. It's certainly very compatible with it, whatever motivations some of its proponents may harbor. * OK, arguably the Barbarian /only/ has simple options. I mustn't keep forgetting about the barbarian. [/QUOTE]

Verification