Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gladius Legis" data-source="post: 9753198" data-attributes="member: 68748">How has it been disruptive? You keep repeating this claim but you never give any examples or analyses. The only way I can see it being "disruptive" is if you're one of those killer DMs who was upset you couldn't CC the Fighter out of commission.Which, by the way, you couldn't really do that often to a Fighter in AD&D because they had the best saves. 2024 Indomitable finally brings that back to a certain extent, which is still a very limited extent compared to AD&D.2 one-shots. And in neither one was the Fighter dominating action. It was always a full spellcaster of some sort doing so."Getting away with murder" is a figure of speech, so it's hilarious you're taking what I said literally. What I meant was that casters have many more ways at that level of disrupting the game than the Fighter does. That was true in 2014, and it is still unfortunately true in 2024 even if the Fighter has closed that gap somewhat.Because you're comparing two different types of characters at the same level of play. It's OK to do that, contrary to what you believe.I never said the Fighter should get spells. That is a ridiculous straw man. What I am getting at is that Fighters (and all martials) should have abilities that are comparable in effect on the game to what casters get at those levels, even if those abilities aren't spells.2024 still falls short in that regard, but the new Indomitable at least closes that gap a little bit. Which obviously is offensive to your sensibilities for reasons you still haven't defined to satisfaction.I'm having trouble understanding what you do want out of martials, because you're not making any sense.</blockquote>

Verification