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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 6269170" data-attributes="member: 79401">My apologies. It was not my intent to attribute views to you that you do not hold.Yes, I agree that fighters should be mechanically broad ... at least, if we're going to continue to treat them as conceptually broad.Either we need to provide them the tools to represent the concepts they're supposed to cover, or we need to accept that they don't cover those concepts and (assuming we want those concepts to be modelled in the game) come up with classes that do, to take the burden of supporting them off the shoulders of the fighter. 4E took the approach of both somewhat narrowing the conceptual breadth (pushing the non-magical archer over into the Ranger, for instance) while increasing the range of mechanical support. I don't feel it really went far enough in either respect, as even the vast majority of fighter utilities still fell into the 'hit stuff harder or be better at taking hits' niche, but at least some support was provided for being more than just to-hit and damage in combat. The 4E fighter has the ability to both force and restrict enemy movements, manoeuvre in combat, as well as impose at least a meaningful fraction of the range of conditions available to other classes (slowed, prone, and dazed being the most readily available to the fighter without the use of magic items) without doing something tactically unwise (such as giving up an entire round worth of damaging attacks by the supposedly most effective attacker ... though they also gave up their claim on that position in the narrowing of the conceptual breadth).</blockquote>

Verification