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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kavon" data-source="post: 5961167" data-attributes="member: 9822">The ultimate goal in D&D, when it concerns combat like in this thread, is to neutralize your opponent(s). This can be reducing their HP through damage, this can be convincing them to stand down somehow, this can be one of many ways a spellcasting can take them out of the fight.Currently the Fighter only has damage to achieve this goal in 5e, so any new abilities that are added should be compared to this to see how effective it is.Using your one action to only (slightly) hinder your opponent really isn't all that great when you could've been taking down the opponent's HP instead.(One of) the point(s) SKyOdin makes, as far as I can tell, is that using an action to gain advantage on your next attack is useless, unless you also someone gain additional damage on that attack.It would work for Rogues, I suppose, since they get Sneak Attack.Now if the Fighter were to gain some abilities that were on the same scale as the spellcaster's ability to use alternative means (ones that do not do damage) to neutralize the opposition, it might be different.This would require the Fighter to be capable of some more outlandish manouvers, though, and that's not for everyone.Also, I suppose a Fighter might use intimidation to cower some of his foes, but I can't imagine this working for many cases, unless it becomes more supernatural.Combat manouvers should be able to give a meaningful alternative to doing damage. If it's not meaningful enough compared to the damage contribution, maybe it should still do damage (with perhaps a penalty on the actual damage done).But then again, it shouldn't be so significant to replace your damage contribution entirely, either.It's a fine line between one or the other being useless, and you being better off just using that one thing that works best.A stamina system would solve some of this, I would imagine.</blockquote>

Verification