Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5814091" data-attributes="member: 32536">I disagree with just about every last thing said in that blog. I disagree so much that it terrifies me. This is like reading historical revisionism...The 3E Fighter was a joke. It was a terrible class. Far from being versatile, it was nothing more than an utter weakling who was encouraged to abuse system mastery and turn himself into a one-trick pony in order to be useful and effective. Fighters were not versatile. They dedicated every feat to elaborate chains of ever-greater weapon specialization, and every feat not needed to that was spent chasing some gimmicky trick like Whirlwind Attack or tripping.There was a good 3E fighting class, and it was called the Warblade. Accept no substitutes.Anyways, I still vastly prefer the idea of breaking up these silly ideas that the Fighter is a "dumb newbie" class or that it is a catch-all for every character concept that uses weapons rather than magic. I want to see a Fighter that is just as interesting as a Wizard or Cleric, and I want to see the Fighter's many cousin classes, like the Archer, the Cavalier, and so on. Basically, I want the 4E Fighter, specialization in melee combat and genuine versatility included.</blockquote>