Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1122341" data-attributes="member: 5171">If nobody is playing a fighter in your campaign, then:a) everybody is happy with the pre-built character options presented by other classes (the abilities given to monks, or to rangers, or to barbarians), and therefore the customizability of the fighter class is not necessaryb) nobody has the ability to pick their fighter feats successfullyc) the campaign has a lighter focus on combat, and therefore people are quite naturally gravitating to classes that offer more out-of-combat abilitiesComplaining in situation (a) is silly -- the fighter is designed to be a strong combatant in either specific or general situations, and can function quite well there.&nbsp; As the DM, you may not be giving them enough different types of combat and showing how a versatile combatant would really help.Complaining in situation (b) is silly -- I can make the fighter work very well based on the feats I pick, for what I want him to do, and your inability to do so should not necessitate a power bump.&nbsp; If you want to play the easiest class possible, play a barbarian.&nbsp; The fighter can be very easy once you get going, but he requires a large amount of character-building work in order to get what you want.Complaining in situation (c) is silly -- that's like saying, &quot;Rogues are totally broken and useless!&nbsp; I'm playing in a campaign where all we do all session long is fight mindless undead in melee combat, and my character can hardly do anything!&nbsp; The rogue needs a better BAB!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1122341, member: 5171"] If nobody is playing a fighter in your campaign, then: a) everybody is happy with the pre-built character options presented by other classes (the abilities given to monks, or to rangers, or to barbarians), and therefore the customizability of the fighter class is not necessary b) nobody has the ability to pick their fighter feats successfully c) the campaign has a lighter focus on combat, and therefore people are quite naturally gravitating to classes that offer more out-of-combat abilities Complaining in situation (a) is silly -- the fighter is designed to be a strong combatant in either specific or general situations, and can function quite well there. As the DM, you may not be giving them enough different types of combat and showing how a versatile combatant would really help. Complaining in situation (b) is silly -- I [b]can[/b] make the fighter work very well based on the feats I pick, for what I want him to do, and your inability to do so should not necessitate a power bump. If you want to play the easiest class possible, play a barbarian. The fighter can be very easy once you get going, but he requires a large amount of character-building work in order to get what you want. Complaining in situation (c) is silly -- that's like saying, "Rogues are totally broken and useless! I'm playing in a campaign where all we do all session long is fight mindless undead in melee combat, and my character can hardly do anything! The rogue needs a better BAB!" [/QUOTE]

Verification