D&D 5E Companion thread to "5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part VI: Fighters)"

[W'rkncacnter]

that class with a mechanic that made it impossible to cast its spells.

wait--WHAT? what class was THAT?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

wait--WHAT? what class was THAT?

Probably Truenamer, but might be Shadowcaster.

Really wish we had cleared the Scout, the Knight, the Arcane Archer, the Purple Dragon Knight, the Sharpshooter and the Brute first...

Honestly, I'm just glad that one of the two I wanted out is now gone. Soon as the other is out, I don't much care which one wins. Might just focus on tall poppies from there on.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Probably Truenamer, but might be Shadowcaster.

ok, yeah, looked both of them up - definitely truenamer. dear god this class is a disaster. thanks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can have fun using it" is an absolute rock-bottom, bare-minimum qualification

They literally said it’s a lot of fun to play.

It’s better to make your point without blatantly claiming someone said something entirely other than what they said.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

another fighter pet peeve - the Eldritch Knight.

Now, we know the EK is like playing a fighter with a solid dash of magic. But... what I've seen in play is that the spell slots are almost entirely consumed by casting shield. And after a while that's a bit boring and not very magical.

So it's not a dash, it's a sprinkle of magic. You might as well take magical adept, find familiar as your spell and 2 cantrips, and you'll be almost as magical as an EK. Sure, you won't have the shield spell, but you'll have an entire other subclass...

I’ve never seen that. That’s wild.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They literally said it’s a lot of fun to play.

It’s better to make your point without blatantly claiming someone said something entirely other than what they said.

The alternative to "it's a lot of fun to play" is "it's not a lot of fun to play." Meaning, it is (at the very least) very difficult to enjoy playing it.

Any class which is very difficult to enjoy playing should either not exist, or be corrected so that it is no longer very difficult to enjoy playing it.

I also quoted the poster exactly. I literally neither added to nor removed anything from their post, I just split apart the two separate one-sentence paragraphs. How on earth could I be "claiming [they] said something entirely other than what they said"?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The alternative to "it's a lot of fun to play" is "it's not a lot of fun to play." Meaning, it is (at the very least) very difficult to enjoy playing it.

Any class which is very difficult to enjoy playing should either not exist, or be corrected so that it is no longer very difficult to enjoy playing it.

I also quoted the poster exactly. I literally neither added to nor removed anything from their post, I just split apart the two separate one-sentence paragraphs. How on earth could I be "claiming [they] said something entirely other than what they said"?

You said:

I should hope it is at least some fun to play. This is very similar to the "it's a playable game" defense.

No, it isn’t. It’s fun to play. Not “it’s playable”, not “you can have fun while you happen to be playing it”, just “it’s still a lot of fun”. “A lot” has a meaning. Pretending it isn’t in the sentence is weird and off putting.

That is, if the Warlock genuinely were impossible to enjoy, if it literally was made in such a way that no person, no matter how hard they tried, could ever have fun playing it, then that would firstly be one of the most dangerous weapons of psychological warfare ever developed, and secondly it should never have even made it to the page to need improvement in the first place.

"You can have fun using it" is an absolute rock-bottom, bare-minimum qualification. It is like saying that a particular bit of food is edible. It had better be! If it isn't edible it isn't food!

The bolded is not what they said. Getting pedantic about what each word in thier original statement could mean is entirely unconvincing. It’s obvious that they are saying it’s a fun subclass, not that that “it contains some bare minimum level of potential fun”.

Like do you not see the difference? Seriously?

 

[CleverNickName]

I've played lots of fighters in 5e, it's my favorite class. I've played Eldritch Knight four different times, a Battle Master twice, and a Champion, Echo Knight, and a Gunslinger once each.

All of them were fun to play on their own way, but the Eldritch Knight is the best one for my play style. Echo Knight is a very close second... all others I've tried tie for third place. But I'll say it again: I thought all of them were fun to play in their own way.

My opinion? This hyperbole about Worst Ever and whichever one is The Most Not Fun needs a reality check. Yes we understand you have a favorite and you want it to win... that doesn't mean all other options are bad/undesireable/broken, not even by comparison. Sheesh.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I’ve never seen that. That’s wild.

The thing about Shield on an EK is it is very strong. It's like stunning fist/paladin smite/hunters mark/hex for their respective classes. It tends to use up your consumable resource, leaving little left over to do anything else. It also tends to channel the EK into the role of tank.

What tends to be overlooked is spell slots are a transferable resource, and EKs benefit more than most from the newer feats, races and backgrounds added to the game.

 

[Ancalagon]

The recent trend for racial/feat spells to be castable using spell slots makes the EK rather more flexible. You could pick up Hex for a damage boost for example.

But Shield EK is one of the most effective tanks in the game. Players like it. Not everyone wants a vast array of buttons.

Yes, if you decide to lean on the magic and take things like fey touched (hex is good, and misty step is good too, mobility is good for a melee PC), magic initiate, ritual caster etc, it does help make it "feel" more magical.

Is it that effective though? at low levels you are going to get what, 2 shields a day?