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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaltab" data-source="post: 6285904" data-attributes="member: 6775806">If you're useless or barely useful most of the time, like the 3.5 Fighter is, then yes, that is bad design....I... what... no.. No. I'm not referring to 'performance' in the sense of stage performance of musical performance. I mean in terms of how much effect they can have on the gameworld, they're p. terrible compared to just about every non-martial melee combatant, but especially the BO9S meleeists.Except no, it's not. The AD&D editions gave the fighter things like soldiers and underlings and had them upgrade to things like Paladins, which became its own seperate class later on. Meanwhile, the Basic line of games had weapon mastery and are generally better designed than AD&D to begin with--even though you're wrong about AD&D, it's still not exactly inspired fighter design, and not really doable in the modern game where the party doesn't have underlings most of the time.Uh... what?  None of those things are even remotely true. The 4E fighter is a weapon based class with limited ranged attack capability that focuses on the exact thing you've been saying it should: fighting. The Weaponmaster subclass (the PHB1 version) focuses on defending allies by creating a front line for the fighting, and gets bonuses to techniques based on their combinations of weapons, shields, etc. Even within the Weaponmaster there are plenty of options. The Slayer and Knight are simpler subclasses, the former being primarily a damage-dealing class that gets power attacks, and the latter being a more standard sword and board fighter that defends allies within its immediate vicinity. None of them get spells without taking multiclassing or racial options that grant them. In my first 4E game I took a Dwarven Greatweapon Fighter from L.2 to L.12, and she was a load of fun to play. Moreover, being super athletic and history buff she had utility outside of combat. Even using the same basic theme, a 3rd Edition fighter is not mechanically sound enough to compare, and this is largely because of the generic design you're advocating: without something specific to design toward, a class becomes 'throw everything that sounds good, don't bother to make sure it works.'.But then you begin to dilute the game enough that you might as well play a system that better supports that style of play. D&D is a square peg. There's nothing wrong with a square peg and a round hole, but you'll have more luck if you find a round peg.  I think it's better to start with something mechanically sound and adjust it based on feedback than it is to start with something in extremely dire need of repairs and patch it up--at least for the core, the basic martial class. Experimental or 'concept' classes can work, but starting with a failed concept and improving it seems backwards to me.</blockquote>

Verification