Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5996049" data-attributes="member: 996">True.  None the less, the assumption being made in 5e is that the fighter will be 'best at' fighting, and that balance will require he be bad at the other two pillars.  Getting that balance 'right' is a matter of degree - of making the fighter so much better at combat in return for so much worse at interaction and exploration - on the part of the designers, and of DMs carefully balancing the relative importance and prominence of each of the three pillars in their campaigns.  So, if the fighter is to enjoy only a small edge in combat, while being far behind in the other two pillars, that would argue that the DM must make combat a primary focus of the game, with most game time in most sessions being taken up with it.  The balance achieved would consist of the fighter being 'best,' in the sense of 'first among equals' in combat, contributing a little more, a little more consistently, but still giving everyone else a chance to shine some of the time, and the other classes getting to dominate in interaction and exploration while the fighter awaits the glory of the next fight.  While I agree in the broader sense, and, while that would make a better game, one in which players are free to play the characters they want, in the styles they want, while the DM is free to run the campaign he wants, with the tone and pacing he wants, such a game "wouldn't be D&D."</blockquote>