Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 5964836" data-attributes="member: 79401">I repeat: as it exists in the playtest.Look, if nobody looks at the playtest and says to WotC "Hey, we'd really like it if there was a little bit more to the fighter beyond a bonus to weapon damage and a few extra actions per day.", then they're not going to know that there's a demand for it.I've passed no judgment on the system as a whole. I'm not spouting tales of doom and woe. I'm giving feedback, which last I checked, is the entire purpose of playtesting.I'm saying that Amanda won't like the 5E playtest fighter, and Bob doesn't care about the difference between it and any random 4E sword wielding fighter you can hand him because as long as he rolls his dice and gets to describe in loving detail the way he sticks an imaginary piece of sharpened steel into somebody's guts, he's content.And yes, for the moment, Charlie is screwed. However, Charlie's position is different than Amanda's: he's left wondering how they're going to design his class of choice. Amanda already knows that they've set up their first approach to her favourite class in a way that does not appeal.Perhaps you are misreading how I'm using the word screwed. I'm not implying any permanence. The next iteration of the playtest document could provide a fighter that makes Amanda squeal with joy. I'd be quite surprised if it doesn't pick up at least a couple of class features by the next time we see it.I say the fighter has a lack of class features, you point out we haven't seen a lot of feats yet. Feats are part of themes, not class.Non-damaging attack options would have to be pretty spectacular for the fighter to opt to use them over his regular attack. It's the one area of the game as it currently exists where he has a mechanical advantage over anyone.I'm as curious as the next tactically minded fellow as to what they'll come up with for the combat modules. But combat modules are a system-wide adjustment to combat. Unless they come up with one called "The one that gives fighters things to do, but doesn't give everyone else the exact same things", it won't address the central point which is that the fighter lacks things to do, what with everything that they can do being the stuff that everyone else does in addition to their class features.Anyways, the post you quoted basically boils down to this: a complex and mechanically interesting fighter can do every last thing that a simple fighter can, and thus is entirely capable of satisfying the demand for a simple fighter. The reverse is not true.</blockquote>

Verification