Search results

Yes, but my point is that it's fluff, not mechanics. Primal is not a Power Source, it's not a Spell List, it's not a keyword. Yes, I think you're wrong to do so. By seeking to rebalance Strength and Dex, you are arguing for too much, semantically absorbing everything within Dex into Strength...

I think this is a misleading truncation of the quote: "Fighters rule many battlefields. Questing knights, royal champions, elite soldiers, and hardened mercenaries - as Fighters, they all share an unparalleled prowess with weapons and armor. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting...

Depends on whether you value Sap over Vex. Different tools in the toolbox.

That is true, but A. the Unarmed Fighting Style is something that was added in Tasha's rather than something that was part of the original concept for the Fighter in 5e, and B. the Brawler was kind of a misfire that speaks to the problem of trying to execute on this concept without stepping on...

It really does not - if we're talking about what real-world things a given class is or is not supposed to be evoking, than which stat is associated with which ability is irrelevant.

Can you give some examples of this? Because the class descriptions I'm familiar with all stress the Fighter as an armed combatant.

If you're talking about the playtest, Primal isn't a spell list any more. So is the word "primal" used in the UA? Yes. But not as a mechanical concept.

Or Way of Mercy 6.

And warrior and fighter are synonyms, so who gives a damn? And Primal isn't a thing outside of 4e.

Again, how is this not a Monk thing? There's nothing in the Monk that says "non-European only."

They're not the worst, but they're pretty mid-tier I would say. And I think the dip argument works the other way as well, no? Dipping one into Rogue makes you just as good a scout if you need to handle the enemy archer.

One, the Monk is substantially less magical than they were before. Second, since when is a "Mixed Martial Artist" not a "Martial Artist"? (Or for that matter, since when does someone in MMA not train in agility and precision just as much as raw strength?)

Yes, but in real life, they also called Norse berzerkers fighters too, and yet the Barbarian class deserves to be a distinct archetype in D&D just as much as the Monk does. I'm frankly not very impressed by Merriam-Webster argumentation.

I'm a huge fan of the woodchipper strategy, but I don't think the Rogue is particularly well-suited to carry it out compared to Monks or Barbarians or Fighters.

Well, it's an opportunity cost thing, isn't it? With all the best will in the world, a Rogue gets far less mileage out of a point invested in Strength than they would investing it in Wisdom or Intelligence, and to change that would require more profound changes than just how skills are grouped.

So...Nick and Vex.

One, Strength Monks are also a thing. Two, why does the Fighter need the wrestling archetype? Why not put it in the unarmed combat class instead?

I think 5e does; my argument was with Horwath, who had argued that ASIs should be eliminated.

To me, ability score increases on the one hand and proficiencies/proficiency bonuses (or new skills) on the other represent different albeit related things. The former represents growth in underlying physical or mental capability - lifting weights or endurance running or yoga or balance...

Yeah, citations needed there: Plenty of campaigns take place over much longer than a couple of years. Whether we're talking about the classic Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms campaigns that could span entire different spans of history, or more recent actual plays like the Critical Role folks...