Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9163675" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes, I am saying that. I'm also saying that Fighter was the most popular class in 3e--the edition that is generally agreed to have made a Fighter that really, well and truly, sucked.The &quot;warrior who fights with thews and grit&quot; archetype is popular. It has always been popular. It will always be popular. You have to put out something worse than the 3e Fighter for it to stop being popular. Also: offer the option of &quot;warrior who fights with strategy and tactics,&quot; and it turns out that, too, is a very popular archetype, most likely regardless of how good or bad it is (though it certainly didn't hurt that the Warlord was very competent in 4e, and specifically, that it matched the ways actual players wanted to play 4e.)Both points are key here. Fighters will be popular even with poor implementation. Hence, their popularity is not a useful guide for whether there are flaws that need correcting. Also, there are similar archetypes (nobody denies Warlords are similar to Fighters, they're both Martial for goodness' sake) which also get a very big positive response. It would seem, then, that there is a high demand for the Martial archetype, and that some fans are more picky than others about how that archetype is expressed. Surely, then, if there are those who don't really care that much about the mechanics (up to a point, as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] noted), and others who care a lot, so long as it isn't a ginormous investment of resources, why wouldn't we want to please both groups? Their interests are mostly orthogonal, and making both happy should mean more sales.That was sort of the point of making a &quot;big tent&quot; edition...another of the talking points about 5e that got quietly abandoned over the edition's run, but held up as a rallying flag for its boosters for years and years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9163675, member: 6790260"] Yes, I am saying that. I'm [I]also[/I] saying that Fighter was the most popular class in 3e--the edition that is generally agreed to have made a Fighter that really, well and truly, [I]sucked[/I]. The "warrior who fights with thews and grit" archetype is popular. It has always been popular. It will always be popular. You have to put out something [I]worse than the 3e Fighter[/I] for it to stop being popular. Also: offer the option of "warrior who fights with strategy and tactics," and it turns out that, too, is a [I]very[/I] popular archetype, most likely regardless of how good or bad it is (though it certainly didn't [I]hurt[/I] that the Warlord was very competent in 4e, and specifically, that it matched the ways actual players wanted to play 4e.) Both points are key here. Fighters will be popular even with poor implementation. Hence, their popularity is not a useful guide for whether there are flaws that need correcting. Also, there are similar archetypes (nobody denies Warlords are [I]similar[/I] to Fighters, they're both Martial for goodness' sake) which also get a very big positive response. It would seem, then, that there is a high demand for the Martial [I]archetype[/I], and that some fans are more picky than others about how that archetype is expressed. Surely, then, if there are those who don't really care that much about the mechanics (up to a point, as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] noted), and others who care a lot, so long as it isn't a ginormous investment of resources, why [I]wouldn't[/I] we want to please both groups? Their interests are mostly orthogonal, and making both happy should mean more sales. That was sort of the point of making a "big tent" edition...another of the talking points about 5e that got quietly abandoned over the edition's run, but held up as a rallying flag for its boosters for years and years. [/QUOTE]

Verification