Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6012374" data-attributes="member: 87792">And that's just a sizeable chunk.&nbsp; A sizeable chunk of us object to the idea that some classes should be classes for dummies.&nbsp;&nbsp;You miss point 2.&nbsp; Of the 20% of people who liked the incredibly simple fighter (because let's face it, CS is still pretty simple), from my observation a significant proportion did not want to play fighters.&nbsp;Oh, and Deadly Strike isn't interesting.&nbsp; The ability that IME actually makes the 5e Fighter is Parry.&nbsp; The ability to soak d6 hit points per round (especially with the current anaemic monster attacks) makes the fighter effective on the front line.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is revisionism.&nbsp; Right now, the fighter, who for most of D&amp;D's history was the only class (or class group counting Paladins and Rangers) to get multiple attacks at high level...&nbsp;In oD&amp;D and 1e, the fighter got a number of attacks equal to his level against level 0 foes.&nbsp; Fairly distinctive.&nbsp; And multiple attacks against all enemies at high level.&nbsp;In 2e, the fighter got Weapon Specialisation - an extra half an attack per round.&nbsp; And a unique mechanic.&nbsp;Before 3e, fighters were the only class (or classes) to be able to take advantage of really high strength or con.&nbsp;So no.&nbsp; The fighter has had unique (if simple) mechanics across most of his lifespan with the only exceptions being the period from 2000 to either 2006 (with the Book of 9 Swords) or 2008.&nbsp; The 3.X fighter is the aberration here.&nbsp;&nbsp;Translation: A Paladin is a selfess warrior and therefore aspires to find one of the rarest, most powerful, and most expensive magic items in existence.&nbsp; One of these things is not like the other one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6012374, member: 87792"] And that's just a sizeable chunk. A sizeable chunk of us object to the idea that some classes should be classes for dummies. You miss point 2. Of the 20% of people who liked the [I]incredibly[/I] simple fighter (because let's face it, CS is still pretty simple), from my observation a significant proportion [I]did not want to play fighters[/I]. Oh, and Deadly Strike isn't interesting. The ability that IME actually makes the 5e Fighter is [I]Parry[/I]. The ability to soak d6 hit points per round (especially with the current anaemic monster attacks) makes the fighter effective on the front line. This is revisionism. Right now, the fighter, who for most of D&D's history was the only class (or class group counting Paladins and Rangers) to get multiple attacks at high level... In oD&D and 1e, the fighter got a number of attacks equal to his level against level 0 foes. Fairly distinctive. And multiple attacks against all enemies at high level. In 2e, the fighter got Weapon Specialisation - an extra half an attack per round. And a unique mechanic. Before 3e, fighters were the only class (or classes) to be able to take advantage of really high strength or con. So no. The fighter has had unique (if simple) mechanics across most of his lifespan with the [I]only[/I] exceptions being the period from 2000 to either 2006 (with the Book of 9 Swords) or 2008. The 3.X fighter is the aberration here. Translation: A Paladin is a selfess warrior and therefore aspires to find one of the rarest, most powerful, and most expensive magic items in existence. One of these things is not like the other one. [/QUOTE]

Verification