Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spinozajack" data-source="post: 6650822" data-attributes="member: 6794198">It's not at all lackluster in what it's supposed to be, a straightforward class to play where the mechanics of combat don't make the player throw their hands up and ask "can't we just play an AD&D instead?"Remember, massive amounts of playtest feedback told the designers that the champion wasn't only something they should have (simple fighter), but that substantial portions wanted.Plus the fact that you can customize your character, then multiclass afterwards if you want, pick what kind of attacks, weapons, fighting styles, makes me wonder if you recognize that it is in fact your opinion of what a good fighter looks like, which is the fringe.I don't want fighters with a million little bits. I can do more with a 5e champion in a typical round than I can using a 4th edition one. For once, I can attack multiple times, in between moves. I can pick up two weapons if I want to, and attack with each one (no training necessary). I can pull out my sword with my attack action, I can be in the top tier of damage potential of the game just by picking a single feat.Consider that for one second. In 3e or 4e, can you even imagine anyone saying, take this one feat and you have close to the best DPR potential in the game? Or even not pick a feat at all, and boost just your strength! that works really well too. No system mastery necessary.A game rules system requiring system mastery is something feedback told the designers they didn't want out of 5th edition.I wouldn't pick an evoker to be a damage dealer in 5th ed, I would pick a champion, and be pretty well off compared to any of the more complex classes. They playtested this game extensively, as did hundreds of thousands of people, who came to the same conclusion. The champion fighter works well, and does what it's supposed to do.Simple is sometimes beautiful. This is one example of that. The champion is both simpler, and a more fun fighter than a 4e fighter for most people who wanted a simple one that's focused on offense. (by 5e champion damage-focused design and feedback which asserts that fact).Most people prefer playing strikers to "defenders", but you could easily be defender-ish if you want, take protection style, sentinel, polearm master.There is literally nothing stopping you from modifying your champion PC to add complexity later on. You can multiclass easily to pick up some spells for utility or rogue abilities like cunning action. In 4e, you got one level of complexity, and that was that. You dealt with it. One size fits all mentality. One true way. No, one size does not fit all. Some people want simpler classes to play, without daily "powers" or weird stuff like marking which most people I know hated. I know the majority of gamers out there also hated it because it's mostly gone in 5th edition, and wizards publically vetted all the game choices they made when deciding what should be in Basic D&D and what should be in the DMG as an optional rule. Even the idea of Basic D&D is sustained by public feedback desirous of a simple core game that works well and isn't hampered by baggage and too much jargon, endless confusion power selection and feat selection, power gaming builds, and the rest. A champion works well in not only basic D&D, but full D&D alongside all the other more complex choices. That's a good game design right there. Being able to play the game without feats and maintain class balance between casters and fighters? Great. Flexible.I think Wizards totally messed up with the 4th edition fighter, they didn't even consider asking themselves as they were designing it (obviously) what did people want out of a fighter class? They rammed it through then tried to rectify their mistake in Essentials by releasing a simple striker fighter but by then it was way too late. Their earlier one-complexity-rules all, one-true-way-to-play-a-fighter (defend other players) is a big part of what did them in. Plus tons of nonsensical powers that nobody could understand how they even worked without magic. I avoided fighters for that reason. I wanted a heavily armored PC focused on damage. So I played a ranger and took heavy armor feats. It was just sad that I had to do that. It showed they didn't even consider for a second that people who wanted to play fighters or even paladins might want to be tanky and DPR-focused at the same time, not designed around filling a defender role that the majority did not want to play. When I disagree with the way a game element works in 5e, I acknowledge that it's probably because my opinion is a minority view on a topic. I wonder if you'll ever recognize your own inability to see the champion as invalidating your own biases being correct. It's subjective, and it's ok to disagree with the majority. Doesn't make you right or wrong. It just means you got overruled.</blockquote>

Verification