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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 5896394" data-attributes="member: 50304">These are all good signs.Being the best at fighting means you are, given the circumstance of a fight where two sides are trying to beat each other up, the fighter is the best aggregate combination of dishing out and taking a beating. What that translates to in terms of damage, damage resistance, and battlefield control is anyone's guess (and will probably vary fighter-to-fighter).The one mechanical hurdle I'm hoping they design around are the save-or-suck scenarios pointed at fighters. A fighter who just ignores all non-HP attacks is just as negative an experience as a fighter who is constantly taken out of the fight by Enchantment effects. If the fighter has a simple mechanic for burning HP to "fight through" negative effects I'd be very pleased. Heck, if everyone had that option but the fighter was just better at it by virtue of his massive reserves of Hit Points that would be even better!I also don't want the fighter producing a massive series of attack rolls ever round to keep up with the wizard. I'd like a high-level fighter to have a huge aura of beat-down that's constantly on. Enter an Epic-level fighter's threat radius (and he cuts a rather wide swath, I must say) and just eat damage to the face, no rolls necessary. Chafe swarms in armies should die whenever an epic fighter takes a move action through their space - seriously. He's just a carnival of carnage to his enemies.As to the best jouster, swordsman, and archer being fighters - Mearls didn't say anything about them being the same fighter. The class is versatile, and fighters should generally be excellent with all weapons of war. There's nothing there saying a fighter can't become a specialist with a particular weapon. That's actually a long-standing tradition. - Marty Lund</blockquote>

Verification