Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LuYangShih" data-source="post: 1143068" data-attributes="member: 10414">[/b]A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons.&nbsp; You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon.&nbsp; The Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations.&nbsp; If the arena they are fighting in is at all different from a standard dungeon, they quickly become disadvantaged.&nbsp; They lack any skills that would see them through combat situations over a bridge, in a forest, on icy ground, and so on.Actually, no, he would not.&nbsp; Fighters do not have the hitpoints, Rage, or DR of the Barbarian.&nbsp; Not to mention the faster speed.&nbsp; Barbarians are always better tanks.&nbsp; Fighters do not have Sneak Attack, Hide, Move Silently, or any detection skills.&nbsp; The Rogue is always better at hit and run.&nbsp; Rangers so completely outclass Fighters in the ranged combat area it is luaghable.&nbsp; Not really.&nbsp; Flexibility is fairly valueless in a party based game.&nbsp; Remember the poll recently on the worst fifth party member?&nbsp; Monks clearly won, and that is because while they are extremely flexible, with varied abilities, they lack any true specialization, making them weak.&nbsp; Not really.I would be fine with this, if it wasn't for the fact that Fighters not any better in combat than any of those classes.&nbsp; The Warmain from AU has been mentioned previously.&nbsp; Look at that class to see what the Fighter should have been.&nbsp; Fine.&nbsp; You want to prove this?&nbsp; Create a Fighter, completely specialized in any area, and I will create a character from another class who can defeat him at least half the time.&nbsp; Except the Fighter isn't any better in combat than any of the other classes.&nbsp; Your example proves nothing, by the way.&nbsp; The Fighter gains no special combat abilities that are not matched or bettered by the other classes, rendering whatever point you had moot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LuYangShih, post: 1143068, member: 10414"] [/b] A +4 weapon is, mathematically speaking, better than two +3 weapons. You will do more damage and hit more often with the +4 weapon. [b][/b] The Fighter is only useful in narrow combat situations. If the arena they are fighting in is at all different from a standard dungeon, they quickly become disadvantaged. They lack any skills that would see them through combat situations over a bridge, in a forest, on icy ground, and so on. [b][/b] Actually, no, he would not. Fighters do not have the hitpoints, Rage, or DR of the Barbarian. Not to mention the faster speed. Barbarians are always better tanks. Fighters do not have Sneak Attack, Hide, Move Silently, or any detection skills. The Rogue is always better at hit and run. Rangers so completely outclass Fighters in the ranged combat area it is luaghable. [b][/b] Not really. [b][/b] Flexibility is fairly valueless in a party based game. Remember the poll recently on the worst fifth party member? Monks clearly won, and that is because while they are extremely flexible, with varied abilities, they lack any true specialization, making them weak. [b][/b] Not really. [b][/b] I would be fine with this, if it wasn't for the fact that Fighters not any better in combat than any of those classes. The Warmain from AU has been mentioned previously. Look at that class to see what the Fighter should have been. [b][/b] Fine. You want to prove this? Create a Fighter, completely specialized in any area, and I will create a character from another class who can defeat him at least half the time. [b][/b] Except the Fighter isn't any better in combat than any of the other classes. Your example proves nothing, by the way. The Fighter gains no special combat abilities that are not matched or bettered by the other classes, rendering whatever point you had moot. [/QUOTE]

Verification