Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Minigiant" data-source="post: 6643801" data-attributes="member: 63508">What?2e fighters could kill most 2e monsters in 1-2 rounds. Few 2e monsters had more the 50 HP, low defense, low accuracy, and fighters could off them easy. 2e relied on the PCs never having enough HP and healing to continue it the PCs ever got hit. My fighter could killl 75% of the monsters in 1 turn.___________________I think the damage gap of the fighter and rogue with feats is on purpose.Rogues get one big attack.Fighters get 2, 3, or 4 attacks.Fighter use buffs better than rogues. That's my point. A buffed rogue will NEVER keep up to a buffed fighter after level 5.It's the same reason why rangers were best striker in 4e: Twin Strike.Any 5th grader knows that a damage buff grants the mutiattacker better than the single attacker. Mearls and Co had to know this and know we would figure this out. I believe this is intentional. They wanted fighters in a party to kill better during combat than any rogue.If rogues were supposed to be strikers, they would have removed the once per turn limit on Sneak Attack like the 3rd edition SA.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Minigiant, post: 6643801, member: 63508"] What? 2e fighters could kill most 2e monsters in 1-2 rounds. Few 2e monsters had more the 50 HP, low defense, low accuracy, and fighters could off them easy. 2e relied on the PCs never having enough HP and healing to continue it the PCs ever got hit. My fighter could killl 75% of the monsters in 1 turn. ___________________ I think the damage gap of the fighter and rogue with feats is on purpose. Rogues get one big attack. Fighters get 2, 3, or 4 attacks. Fighter use buffs better than rogues. That's my point. A buffed rogue will NEVER keep up to a buffed fighter after level 5. It's the same reason why rangers were best striker in 4e: Twin Strike. Any 5th grader knows that a damage buff grants the mutiattacker better than the single attacker. Mearls and Co had to know this and know we would figure this out. I believe this is intentional. They wanted fighters in a party to kill better during combat than any rogue. If rogues were supposed to be strikers, they would have removed the once per turn limit on Sneak Attack like the 3rd edition SA. [/QUOTE]

Verification