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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6285286" data-attributes="member: 40233">I'm sure there are examples of previous editions giving classes specific abilities that closed off options for everyone else, but those aren't them.  Both multiple attacks, and for that matter, weapon specialization, are essentially "the same as everybody else gets, only better".  The cleric can make attacks, the fighter can make more attacks.  The thief can be proficient in longsword, the fighter can be a specialist in longsword (pour moi, weapon specialization spelled the end of the fighter as the archetype modeller he was intended to be, but that's a whole different argument). What I'm referring to is giving the fighter discrete special abilities that mean that nobody else can do those things...like for instance disarming someone, or tripping them.  If they did something like make those general maneuvers, but only the fighter could disarm someone and do damage at the same time (everyone else has to choose whether to do damage or accomplish the special effect), that would suit my vision of how the game ought to work.  I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish this.  3e's method was to make all those abilities theoretically possible for anyone, but to actually have a snowball's chance in Tarterus of succeeding at them, you had to take a feat, and only the fighter had the sufficiency of feats to actually take more than one or two of those (and he usually didn't either).  So I guess I should thank my stars they aren't emulating 3e, because that way stunk.But like I said, I lost this fight; most people want the fighter to have discrete things, defined within the class, that only the fighter can do.  I think that makes for a poorer game, but I'm in the minority, so it's something I can live with.  There's a lot of other stuff about 5e to look forward to.</blockquote>

Verification