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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7189189" data-attributes="member: 20323">I want to clarify that even though I was using a tally of certain class features as a point of comparison, number of features is not my primary point of focus. Unique identity is what I was interested in with that example. For example, I discounted the repeated appearances of the Bard's Magical Secrets because – even though it's just as useful as the fighter's 2 bonus feats – it's not unique to the class. IMHO, unique identity is something valuable to include in D&D class design. YMMV.Speaking personally, I think the fighter could use a rewrite similar to what they're doing for the ranger. However, I absolutely would not want to make it have excessive fiddly bits. I agree it's essential for the fighter to have a simple basic option, probably more so than other classes.Again, speaking personally, I've always advocated for inclusionary design (well, redesign) of the fighter. And I don't think that adding more features necessarily makes a class more fiddly or complex. In fact, if a feature is well designed even just 1 or 2 features can capture the spirit of a class. For example, Cunning Action and Sneak Attack do wonders to define the rogue because of the quality of their design that facilitates the play style of rogues – moving about the scene, slipping out of a foe's reach, ducking into the shadows, backstabbing distracted enemies. I consider Second Wind and Action Surge as being less successful at capturing the fighter's spirit than Cunning Action and Sneak Attack capture the rogue's. Part of it is that they're limited-use powers, when the fighter feels like he should be "the all-day strong" guy. The other part is...a bit more nebulous...Second Wind is anemic and passive....Action Surge, though unquestionably useful, is so broad as to lack identity.</blockquote>

Verification