If simple Fighters are not boring, then why are so many people bored with them?
If you're arguing that simple fighters are boring based off the fact that there are "many" people who claim they are, you'd be committing a Bandwagon Fallacy. Something is not so, simply because any number of people say it is so. The Earth was not flat prior to our discovery otherwise
But that's kind of beside the point. What is boring is subjective.
I love the subject of Economics. I could listen to Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman lecture for hours at a time. Others would be bored to tears.
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.
It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.
In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game
This, this, for the thousanth time this. This is what has been stated by develepors for months, this is what i believe will happen. We were told WEEKS ago that the fighter being tested will be the BASIC fighter and that more advanced tactical fighter builds will come later.
This is not the only playtest. Test it for what it is, and tell them your looking forward to the power/maneuver options they've promised.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions.
Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
If simple Fighters are not boring, then why are so many people bored with them?
If you're arguing that simple fighters are boring based off the fact that there are "many" people who claim they are, you'd be committing a Bandwagon Fallacy. Something is not so, simply because any number of people say it is so. The Earth was not flat prior to our discovery otherwise
But that's kind of beside the point. What is boring is subjective.
I love the subject of Economics. I could listen to Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman lecture for hours at a time. Others would be bored to tears.
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.
It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.
In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game
This, this, for the thousanth time this. This is what has been stated by develepors for months, this is what i believe will happen. We were told WEEKS ago that the fighter being tested will be the BASIC fighter and that more advanced tactical fighter builds will come later.
This is not the only playtest. Test it for what it is, and tell them your looking forward to the power/maneuver options they've promised.
Personally, I'd be much more accepting of the simple Fighter who will get his options later if the Wizard and Cleric were in the same boat.
Simple Wizards and Clerics could be just as fun as the simple Fighter, and it'd broaden the base appeal of the game by making it easy to start playing no matter what kind of character you want.
For some reason people don't want to see a simple Wizard or Cleric. I often wonder why, since they argue so vehemently for the Fighter's simplicity.
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.
It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.
In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game
I don't necessarily agree that any class needs to be simple in the core rules.
However even granting the premise that there must be a simple class, why the fighter? Why not the cleric, or the wizard, or Rogue? More importantly if it is important for classes to be simple in the core rules why not make all classes simple in the core rules and then more complex in expansions/supplements/modules.
The one thing that 4e got very right in my perspective was building all classes on the same foundation (and there were some cracks in that foundation, to be sure, but at least they all shared that common starting point and framework). This for the first time put all the classes on an equal footing, and I laud that decision and lament the move away from it.
Your mistake is thinking that if a 4e fighter can be played as a 3rd edition one then they are not different. You can play a 4ed fighter for damage, but you can play it in a lot of different ways.
Think about marking, stopping enemy's movement, Come and Get It and a bunch of other powers. The 3e fighter simply doesn't have these opportunities. Fighters should get the equivalent of spells in the form of powers or Tome of Battle maneuvers, otherwise they either become basic attack spammers or "DM may I?" characters.
I see a lot of people tallking about fighters being interesting to play because you have to imagine the actions and improvise. As a player I always hated those who did it. Kicking dirt in the eyes of an enemy is nice if you do it once, or twice, but if you do it all the time it quickly gets as boring as spamming basic attacks. On top of that improvised attacks are always balanced by the DM and I'm against giving too much mechanic rulings in the hands of the DM (and I'm a DM for 50% of the time), because you'll have wild variations.
Are you saying that a 3.5 fighter had no variation? By the end of it's life cycle, the fighter had WELL over 100 feats to choose. I've seen so many weird fighter builds that I could probably list them for days at this point. Spiked chain gladiator? Check. Whip Master? Check. CRAZY Archer that put ranger to shame? Check. Thrown Weapon specialist? Double check, AND screw that broken POS character lol.
Also remember the Golden Rule of this playtest that people are seeming to forget. Back when they announced how the edition was going to be crafted, they mentioned that the base rule set was going to be there to appeal to the 1st and 2nd ed crowd. It has done just that. They WILL bring in other factors that will appeal to the other crowds. This is not anywhere NEAR the final product.
Personally, I'd be much more accepting of the simple Fighter who will get his options later if the Wizard and Cleric were in the same boat.
Simple Wizards and Clerics could be just as fun as the simple Fighter, and it'd broaden the base appeal of the game by making it easy to start playing no matter what kind of character you want.
For some reason people don't want to see a simple Wizard or Cleric. I often wonder why, since they argue so vehemently for the Fighter's simplicity.
The wizard and Cleric ARE already simple, at least, as simple as their concept/archetype/purpose allow. Not as simple as the fighter, at least on the surface, but hardly complex.
I don't necessarily agree that any class needs to be simple in the core rules.
However even granting the premise that there must be a simple class, why the fighter? Why not the cleric, or the wizard, or Rogue? More importantly if it is important for classes to be simple in the core rules why not make all classes simple in the core rules and then more complex in expansions/supplements/modules.
All classes in the core should be represented in their most simple form. That way, supplements can add to those classes what you want, while not forcing me or others to play YOUR fighter. I can play MY fighter, and I can play MY wizard and you can play YOURS in that scenario.
The fighter is the most mundane conceptually, and therefore requires the least ammount of complexity to do what a fighter needs to do. The cleric/rogue/wizard are really not THAT complex in their basic forms, only a tad more so then the figher.
Why is the fighter simple but the wizard complex? It's fine for there to be simple classes for the guy who spends half the time texting or whatever, but what about players who enjoy thinking tactically but would still rather play a character who perseveres through blood and sweat rather than a tower-dwelling namby-pamby?
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game. In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game
The potential problem with this is what we saw a lot of in 3.x: DMs with no understanding of how the rules work blanket-banning entire splats. If the Warblade is banned, there's no muscly-type class available in 3.5 who's even of middling competence, nor any with more options than "attack" or "rage, then attack". And of course, even allowing the Warblade, there's nothing anywhere in the whole edition that can challenge a core wizard, besides a wizard using that same core class but with access to the even more options that filled countless splatbooks for him. Surely you can appreciate why many people would prefer not to see this situation mirrored in 5e?
The wizard and Cleric ARE already simple, at least, as simple as their concept/archetype/purpose allow. Not as simple as the fighter, at least on the surface, but hardly complex.
"simple" and "complex" are ultimately subjective terms. Compared to the other classes, cleric and wizard are complex. Compared to a character built in FATAL, the cleric and wizard are simple. But what we're comparing to here isn't some arbitrary outside benchmark. It's the other things in Next, and to a lesser extent to everything else in D&D. The fact of the matter is, there's no reason "I cast a spell" should be any different than "I use an attack". In fact if you look at it that way, it should be far less simple, because "I use an attack" isn't something that would happen in actual medieval combat, instead you might use a parry, a lunge, a feint, etc.a There is no single "attack" option, while magic can (and often has!) easily been conceived as having a simple "evoke" option.
All classes in the core should be represented in their most simple form. That way, supplements can add to those classes what you want, while not forcing me or others to play YOUR fighter. I can play MY fighter, and I can play MY wizard and you can play YOURS in that scenario.
First of all, using this theory, the wizard as currently styled shouldn't be in core at all then. Our core option should be more like the Warlock of 3.5, which was a simpler (and not coincidentally, far less powerful) caster that didn't use vancian magic.
The fighter is the most mundane conceptually, and therefore requires the least ammount of complexity to do what a fighter needs to do. The cleric/rogue/wizard are really not THAT complex in their basic forms, only a tad more so then the figher.
Mundane != simple. It is makes no more sense to simplify everything a fighter can do to "I hit him with my weapon" than it does to simplify everything a wizard can do to "I hit him with my magic".
The fact of the matter is that the fighter needs to be simple in the core rules, and made more complex with expansions/supplements to the game.
It's always easier to expand then redact a game system.
In that way, everyone gets the fighter they want for their home game
I don't necessarily agree that any class needs to be simple in the core rules.
However even granting the premise that there must be a simple class, why the fighter? Why not the cleric, or the wizard, or Rogue? More importantly if it is important for classes to be simple in the core rules why not make all classes simple in the core rules and then more complex in expansions/supplements/modules.
The one thing that 4e got very right in my perspective was building all classes on the same foundation (and there were some cracks in that foundation, to be sure, but at least they all shared that common starting point and framework). This for the first time put all the classes on an equal footing, and I laud that decision and lament the move away from it.
Because they aren't targeting the current players of 4e at this point in the production process, they are trying to build a viable mathematical baseline to tempt back players who preferred the earlier editions. Love it or loathe it, they got a lot of positive feedback from the simplified martial builds in Essentials. 4e players are happy with their complex builds and can continue to play them until there are enough tactical modules to satisfy them.
4e elements such as at-will magic and themes are already bringing some nice elements from 4e and the return to free-form combat using simple opposed rolls should make combat fun while still being faster than 4e. The tactical module will be playtested soon enough. Focus on the maths for now.
So, what, tangibly, do the people that want a more interesting/complex fighter want out of it, given that the core assumption is that combat is not gridded/non-tactical detail?
Why is the fighter simple but the wizard complex? It's fine for there to be simple classes for the guy who spends half the time texting or whatever, but what about players who enjoy thinking tactically but would still rather play a character who perseveres through blood and sweat rather than a tower-dwelling namby-pamby?
If you want more complex charaters, then you get the expansions. If you demand that the core be complex, you then, by extension, demand everyone else play your version of D&D - or simply go without a current and supported system. A simple core with complex expansions gives you the option to play whatever complexity you want. The reverse is not true.
The potential problem with this is what we saw a lot of in 3.x: DMs with no understanding of how the rules work blanket-banning entire splats.
That's no different then any edition. Ultimately it comes down to the player to DM relationship. If he is running a game that is unsatisfactory to you, you are not forced to play. If he has "no understanding of how the rules work" then it wont matter what he allows and what he doesn't.
If the Warblade is banned, there's no muscly-type class available in 3.5 who's even of middling competence, nor any with more options than "attack" or "rage, then attack". And of course, even allowing the Warblade, there's nothing anywhere in the whole edition that can challenge a core wizard, besides a wizard using that same core class but with access to the even more options that filled countless splatbooks for him. Surely you can appreciate why many people would prefer not to see this situation mirrored in 5e?
Once again, that's something every group works out for themselves. What is allowed and what isn't. I'm sure you can appreciate why many people do not wish to be forced into playing the game in only one way.
"simple" and "complex" are ultimately subjective terms. Compared to the other classes, cleric and wizard are complex. Compared to a character built in FATAL, the cleric and wizard are simple. But what we're comparing to here isn't some arbitrary outside benchmark. It's the other things in Next, and to a lesser extent to everything else in D&D. The fact of the matter is, there's no reason "I cast a spell" should be any different than "I use an attack". In fact if you look at it that way, it should be far less simple, because "I use an attack" isn't something that would happen in actual medieval combat, instead you might use a parry, a lunge, a feint, etc.a There is no single "attack" option, while magic can (and often has!) easily been conceived as having a simple "evoke" option.
The existance of subjectivity does not invalidate a point in and of itself, nor is it an excuse to ignore an argument. I think it's odd that you would open your statment with this, considering your following points.
I disagree with your reasoning. Attacking is swinging a sword, even with skill, it can be more complex then that in small measures. Casting a spell requires (by the system shown in the packet, and almost all of D&D history) revolves around a caster memorizing a spell, mixing components and dealing with other worldly forces. To suggest that the fighters job is more complex then the magic user's would be disengenuous.
First of all, using this theory, the wizard as currently styled shouldn't be in core at all then. Our core option should be more like the Warlock of 3.5, which was a simpler (and not coincidentally, far less powerful) caster that didn't use vancian magic.
I thought "simple" and "complex" were wholey subjective, and we couldn't use such terms to argue "arbitrary benchmarks."
If we are to throw out all subjective arguments or observations, then your statment here is meaningless. However, since I don't consider subjective the same thing as invalid, I would not hold on to that reasoning.
I would not agree whatsover that the 5e wizard presented is too complex, or complex at all, or more complex then the 3.5 warlock.
Mundane != simple. It is makes no more sense to simplify everything a fighter can do to "I hit him with my weapon" than it does to simplify everything a wizard can do to "I hit him with my magic".
Whatever technique the fighter uses, whatever stance and however he uses his weapon the goal, and possible end result is the same. Cause straight damage to the monster.
Spells do not work that way. They do not all serve the same goal or work towards the same possible end result. Therefore, magic use, by its nature, requires the consideration of far more variables then weapon/melee combat.
As such, the wizard is inherintly (even in it's most simple form) more complex then the fighter.
Ultimately, it comes down to what you think 5e should be.
If you think that 5e should allow for multiple game styles, and allow groups to tailor the game to how they want, then you want a simple core that can (and will) be expanded upon. In this scenario (I repeat) both you and I get a game we can enjoy.
If you think that 5e should allow fewer or only one style of play, then you want a complex hard and fast core where there is a mandatory minimum of complexity. In this scenario, you may get a game you want - but I will not.
I don't see any reason (fiscally or otherwise) that we should take the second path. Why not make a game that everyone (with a little modding, or a few supplements) can enjoy? WotC makes more money that way. I have more fun that way, and you get your fun too.
