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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8767095" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Claiming that not having maneuvers "hurts" the martial experience is anecdotal too.  This whole thread is based on an anecdote with no evidentiary basis.We could keep the fighter where it is, where many players like it, without mucking up the definition and balance between the classes, the balance that has worked so well for 5E as a whole.That is what we are doing at my tables, that is what is being done at most tables you will find online, those tables are presumably having fun and the fighter is a popular class with the current mechanics (by many accounts the most popular class).  Since Tasha's and Xanathars people play a wide array of Fighter subclasses besides the Champion and the Battle Master.The original premise was that Battle Masters were causing problems specifically because they are the only subclass that gets maneuvers and that is "hurting" the martial experience.  That hypothesis is objectively untrue as any fighter can get those maneuvers and any class can access them with feats. Battle Masters can just do those things more often and with no opportunity cost (other than the subclass choice).  Further, there is no objective evidence to support the idea that lack of more maneuvers "hurts" other martials.  That is an "anecdotal" observation from the OPs tables perhaps, but it is implicitly refuted on a large scale by the fact the Fighter and the game both remain wildly popular.Sure, and 4E was not very popular and far fewer people played fighters in 4E than play them in 5E.  I can't say the fighter was the reason, but people did not like 4E to the degree they do 5E.</blockquote>

Verification