Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5979642" data-attributes="member: 65726">Boosting or dice pools are used in many games. I think it's a fine game mechanic. I just don't know why it needs to be unique to the fighter... Why couldn't a wizard use his dice pool to boost the damage of his magic missile or the defensive benefit of his shield spell, or the area of his fireball? Why couldn't the Cleric use it to boost the amount of healing, the bonus of his shield of faith, or increase the targets of his turn undead?I don't think they have managed to find the answer to their initial question of &quot;What makes the fighter unique compared to other classes?&quot; In 4e, the identity of the weaponmaster is pretty clear, they are a martial defender class. They use melee weapons, have some innate toughness, and they have abilities that help defend their allies and make it difficult for enemies to ignore them. 5e currently has no schtic for the fighter, he is just a dude with a weapon, armor, and hit points. There is nothing more to it. And this new mechanic is just a mechanic. It is not a unifying/defining identity for the class. Are they implying a rogue can't be a swashbuckler and strike back with an immediate action? A paladin can't intercept an enemy's attack with his shield to protect an ally? A ranger can't master two weapon fighting beyond what a feat provides? Nothing the article says holds up to scrutiny.Before throwing random game mechanics around, I wish they would define (in words rather than mechanics) what they think the fighter should be good at. Swinging a weapon, and being tough, is clearly not a sufficient answer based on their poll results.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mengu, post: 5979642, member: 65726"] Boosting or dice pools are used in many games. I think it's a fine game mechanic. I just don't know why it needs to be unique to the fighter... Why couldn't a wizard use his dice pool to boost the damage of his magic missile or the defensive benefit of his shield spell, or the area of his fireball? Why couldn't the Cleric use it to boost the amount of healing, the bonus of his shield of faith, or increase the targets of his turn undead? I don't think they have managed to find the answer to their initial question of "What makes the fighter unique compared to other classes?" In 4e, the identity of the weaponmaster is pretty clear, they are a martial defender class. They use melee weapons, have some innate toughness, and they have abilities that help defend their allies and make it difficult for enemies to ignore them. 5e currently has no schtic for the fighter, he is just a dude with a weapon, armor, and hit points. There is nothing more to it. And this new mechanic is just a mechanic. It is not a unifying/defining identity for the class. Are they implying a rogue can't be a swashbuckler and strike back with an immediate action? A paladin can't intercept an enemy's attack with his shield to protect an ally? A ranger can't master two weapon fighting beyond what a feat provides? Nothing the article says holds up to scrutiny. Before throwing random game mechanics around, I wish they would define (in words rather than mechanics) what they think the fighter should be good at. Swinging a weapon, and being tough, is clearly not a sufficient answer based on their poll results. [/QUOTE]

Verification