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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7827879" data-attributes="member: 1465">[sarcasm]Knowing this is objectively BS...[/sarcasm]Sorry Sacrosant but you can't go around saying like that. I actually agree with almost everything else in your post, but you can't claim it is an "objective true". For instance, that "there must be a mechanically simpler class" is objectively false. If the game must support the common play style of simplicity, it needs one or more mechanically simpler character option, not certainly a whole class. In fact in 5e you can play a simple Wizard (even if you can't lower the simplicity down to the same minimum level of the lower-complexity Fighter), and you can play a complex Fighter too.Anyway, to your actual questions... I also don't think the Fighter needs a boost (because let's face it, those who house rule classes 99% of the times they don't do fixes but always boosts) in terms of mechanics. If a Fighter's player is not having fun, it's probably because the DM isn't giving enough challenges that cater the Fighter. Have more combats during a single day but also plenty of short rests: this will show how the Fighter can have better physical resilience and stamina compared to classes that have more daily-based resources. Of course this won't only benefit the Fighter but also other classes with similar resources such as the Warlock.Otherwise if someone has decided for a boost anyway, I think your suggestions are certainly all ok since they are passive and increase the Fighter's stats without making it more complex.</blockquote>

Verification