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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8494118" data-attributes="member: 87792">This isn't asking quite the right question. Before 4e I always played casters outside one-shots. In 4e I played a fighter, a couple of warlords, a monk, and a barbarian. In 5e I've played a shadow monk - and the only other martials so far I've even considered have been an echo knight and a soulblade rogue. Because the rest just look tedious to me. It's not about the archetype, it's the implementation. I do not like spamming attacks and not having out of combat options; my conception of the fighter includes using their brain to master the battlefield.By contrast someone in one of my old groups who'd been playing since the 70s used to either play wizards and struggle with spell juggling or play fighters and have a not great time. But he took to playing a 4e elementalist pyromancer like it was the character he'd always been trying to play, mixing the simplicity of a fighter with the burnination of a wizard.The right question is how many players are finding their characters arbitrarily restricted by this "wizards smart, martials stupid" dichotomy?If you look carefully at oD&D and 1e the loot tables were rigged to favour fighters and this was a part of the game. Clerics not using swords was a balancing factor - which included 40-80% of all magic weapons being swords (depending on edition) and swords going up to +5 while almost every other weapon went only to +2</blockquote>

Verification