Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7846256" data-attributes="member: 996">the persistence of the problem has a lot of bearing, as have the past, non-trivial, attempts to help resolve it.&nbsp;I mean, it was an entirely self-selecting process.&nbsp; You're going to get the people most interested in influencing the shape of the next edition.&nbsp; At my FLGS, for instance, out of 6 tables, one was running the playtest, and it had trouble making the minimum number of players each session.&nbsp;Yep, it'd be a help if that and other feats were cast as fighter class features, rather than optional rules-supplements to an optional rule.&nbsp; Maybe in a 5.5 we'll see a tweak like that?No, this thread is not supposed to be about whether there's a problem with the fighter, that's all you preaching denial.&nbsp; It was one idea for a sub-class.&nbsp; Apparently, in some other forum/entirely-different-game - IDK, the reference was unfamiliar to me - you can float that sort of idea without being attacked for it.&nbsp;&quot;Front line&quot; doesn't really mean too much in 5e, especially run in the nominal default 'TotM' style.&nbsp; Fighters don't have any support features to speak of - they can be de-facto expendable meatshields, if the DM deigns not to ignore them, which, from back in the day, feels like there's kinda an unwritten rule in that regard - though the BM has a couple maneuvers that hint in that direction, while the Paladin does have very solid support, and is easily the Fighter's equal on the front line (for that matter, there are full-caster sub-classes/builds that can stand up to the 'front line' responsibility if need be, which, again, TotM, need may or may not be that often, depending upon the DM's style) .&nbsp; Promises, promises.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7846256, member: 996"] the persistence of the problem has a lot of bearing, as have the past, non-trivial, attempts to help resolve it. I mean, it was an entirely self-selecting process. You're going to get the people most interested in influencing the shape of the next edition. At my FLGS, for instance, out of 6 tables, one was running the playtest, and it had trouble making the minimum number of players each session. Yep, it'd be a help if that and other feats were cast as fighter class features, rather than optional rules-supplements to an optional rule. Maybe in a 5.5 we'll see a tweak like that? No, this thread is not supposed to be about [I]whether[/I] there's a problem with the fighter, that's all you preaching denial. It was one idea for a sub-class. Apparently, in some other forum/entirely-different-game - IDK, the reference was unfamiliar to me - you can float that sort of idea without being attacked for it. "Front line" doesn't really mean too much in 5e, especially run in the nominal default 'TotM' style. Fighters don't have any support features to speak of - they can be de-facto expendable meatshields, if the DM deigns not to ignore them, which, from back in the day, feels like there's kinda an unwritten rule in that regard - though the BM has a couple maneuvers that hint in that direction, while the Paladin does have very solid support, and is easily the Fighter's equal on the front line (for that matter, there are full-caster sub-classes/builds that can stand up to the 'front line' responsibility if need be, which, again, TotM, need may or may not be that often, depending upon the DM's style) . Promises, promises. [/QUOTE]

Verification