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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 6704566" data-attributes="member: 29398">True, but spells are a limited resource: you can only cast so many of them in a day and when you cast them for these purposes it means you're not casting them for something else.  A warlord just keeps on keepin' on, so to not break the overall action economy you have to very carefully restrict what sort of benefits it can give.Except not all of us see the traditional D&D Fighter as inadequate, at least from a 0e-1e-2e perspective.  3e left them behind when it a) took almost all the restrictions and risks out of spellcasting and b) went nuts on adding buff spells.The 1e Ranger was hard to achieve stat-wise.  The 1e Cavalier was an attempt to fill the Knight-in-shining-armour niche in a non-Paladinic way (in hindsight I'd rather have seen the Cavalier in the original game and the Paladin come later, so many arguments would not have happened...).  The Thief, Assassin and Monk aren't intended to replace Fighters at all, they're their own thing; and if I play one I'm not at all going to play it the same way I play a Fighter.  And it's not like I don't play Fighters; they're my go-to class when trying out any new rules system, and my longest-serving character in our established games is - you guessed it - a Fighter! (his name is to the left of this post <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )I sometimes find the people (including some I've played with) who see the 0-1-2e Fighter as inadequate are also those who insist on having a game-mechanics reflection of things better left to roleplay.Lan-"I'll admit, however, that the 1e Barbarian class was a complete disaster"-efan</blockquote>

Verification