Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 1120859" data-attributes="member: 1457">Yes. Exactly right. The Fighter works as is. He's designed to fight well (and that's it), and he fights well (and that's it). Not broken.No. Wrong. A character specifically designed to be useless in a combat situation is simply useless in a combat situation. He's not broken. In fact, he's the opposite of broken--he works perfectly as designed. You may question the wisdom of that design decision, but the character works as designed.To go with the car example:My car doesn't fly. It can't travel through the air. It only drives along theground--that's all it can do.You would say my car is broken. I say that you shouldn't expect a car to be an airplane.Also incorrect. Fighters outshine Wizards in melee combat. Wizards outshine fighters in magical combat. One class depends on the other in different situations. This is a good feature for a multiplayer game. Nothing is wrong.Fighters and Barbarians is trickier since they're both primary melee fighters. Fighters get more armor, shield proficiency, and feats. Barbarians get more skills, special abilities, and a slightly bigger hit die. Which is better? It's a very tough call. A barbarian can never Great Cleave *and* Spring Attack *and* have greater weapon specialization. A fighter can never rage, have 4 skill points/level, or the other class abilities of the Barbarian. Tough call. Balanced. Nothing is wrong.Or, if you disagree and say that something is wrong, that's your opinion and I bet you could make a good argument that you would have made a different design decision. But that's very different from "broken".It's a tough comparison, and outside of the question of whether or nto the fighter is broken.Does the Fighter perform the role for which it was designed? Yes.One question: Is the Fighter broken? No. Clearly no. It performs as it is designed, and thus is not broken.Very different question: Is the Fighter unbalanced, when compared to the Barbarian? Maybe. It's arguable either way.Again, now you're talking about tweaking for perceived balance issues. Not fixing something that is fundamentally broken. Let me ask you: if you were designing a class that was good at one thing: fighting, how would you design that class?Your goal is to make a class that kicks butt in hand-to-hand and ranged combat, has built-in dependence on other classes in just about every non-combat situation, and is a desired party member by players of characters that are not primarily combat focused. Your restrictions are that it cannot overshadow or negate the usefulness of any other class, and it cannot inherently possess abilities that are the domain of established combat classes such as Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian.When determining skills for the class, make sure the class does not challenge the utility of the Rogue or Bard (the Skill classes), so it can't have criminal or social skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Wizard and Bard (the Information classes), so no knowledge skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Druid, Barbarian, and Ranger (the Wild classes), so no survival skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Cleric and Paladin (the Holy classes), so no religion or diplomacy skills. It can't challenge the utility of the Rogue, Ranger, or Monk (the scout classes), so no Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move skills. It can't overshadow the utility of the Monk, Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric (the special ability classes) so every class feature must be utterly mundane. And it can't be a general jack of all trades class. That's the Bard.Your goal is to make an extremely generic, customizable, non-magical fighting class that is good at one thing only: fighting. And it must (*MUST*) depend on others for success in non-combat situations.Go.-z</blockquote>

Verification