Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5996652" data-attributes="member: 1465">I don't think it failed, at least not badly, it depends how you watch it. If you judge it in terms of how many people played a single-class Fighter all way up to 20, then yes it failed badly.If you judge it in terms of how many people played a character with Fighter levels, then it succeeded because it was probably the most common class to "dip" into.IMHO the real shame of the 3ed Fighter was that the designers unbelievably overlooked the potential (but also the duty they had) to design Fighter-only high level feats. It wasn't even that difficult... there was already a Weapon Specialization feat, why not making a Greater Specialization feat and then another down the chain? Why not having the guts to go a little over the top with Fighter-only feats? Clearly if you design Fighter-only feats that are no better than normal feats, you're not improving the attractiveness of Fighter higher levels, because the amount of feats itself is not enough (especially since many times you don't use them simultaneously).Then of course the whole Fighter-dipping phenomenon was exacerbated by the fact that most gaming groups ignored multiclassing penalties...[Sorry... I hope this doens't derail the thread! I just wanted to say that the seed for something unique for the Fighter was there in 3ed since the first print of 3.0, but the shame was that it was immediately left behind]</blockquote>