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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6068080" data-attributes="member: 95493">Not arguing the point you were making here pemerton, but who says all fighters need to be defenders?I assumed by duelist they meant something like the classical duel between two combatants like "duels to the death" used to be. Or basically someone who parrys, ripostes and what not to win a fight. Generally speaking the duelist is going to be in light armor and use a finesse weapon of some sort. NOT someone who stands toe to toe to fight an enemy. That could be anyone. That can be someone in full plate just standing against the BBEG and wailing on him until he is dead. Those are very different things.I don't know about you but I know I'd be perfectly okay with a fighter (or rogue or what have you) picking up sand and tossing it in the eyes of their enemy to blind them temporarily. I would be equally okay with them poking their fingers into the enemy's eyes. The thing is, neither of these abilities require POWERS to complete them. You don't just poke someone's eyes and make them hurt once per day and after that you are done. You might prepare two bags of sand instead of one to toss into someone's eyes. Powers don't facilitate that. Neither do any form of vancian slots.Oh, and in addition, they are VERY mundane things that produce a similar effect to the blindness spell a wizard might cast. They don't however come from the fighter's uniqueness of being a fighter to be performed.How is "Utility Belt-like ability" different from "stocking up on gear"?First, who says the class IS a melee class? I always considered the fighter to be a MARTIAL class, not necessarily MELEE so having the limitation of 'sword not bow' is stupid, at best.Second, if you go with the basics of a class like fighter there is NO reason why the weapon itself should make a huge difference. How you use it, possibly, but the weapon itself should be a relatively minor aspect and should be the same across any class. It doesn't matter if the wizard uses a magical staff, a magical wand, a magical ring, or magical rod, or magic hat or anything. Those are implements, their class is SO much more and should not rely on that relatively minor point to define them.Third, I assume you consider fighters to be melee because their primary role is defenders? Again, why? This is mostly covered below in the reply to the slayers thing. But basically my point is that - until 4e especially - fighters were not defined as defender but were instead defined as guy who deals with enemy and fights. How they did this is up to them. They were able to defend the "squishes" by virtue that they dealt to much damage they were impossible to ignore, and hard to kill too. Yeah that wizard will hurt you eventually but that fighter IS hurting right now. That is very different from the defender role we have now in 4e.A completely different point of course, but many of us despise that we were fighters up to 4e and in 4e we were suddenly rangers (along with HOW MANY new ranger powers?) because we had the gall to want to use bows in combat - shocking.Partially covered above.I'm not overly familiar with 4e, but what are slayers? From my limited experience I would suggest that MOST concepts prior to 4e were more along the theme/role of slayers than defenders. Some people wanted to be that guy who wore full plate and stopped or absorbed damage from the squishies. There were builds for it of course but MOST fighters and fighter builds (prestiges and kits) were NOT built around this. I'm not saying it is invalid or anything but since most versions in 4e (and what I can only assume you are suggesting for 5e) are defenders and that the rest of us want whatever slayers are then something is missing.* You can't bridge that gap with more options for defender, you need the slayer and it in many cases needs to be more important or more default than the defender. Since, prior to 4e, defender was an option just as others were.*Yeah, that sentence got away from me a little. If there is confusion I'll have to clarify it in my next post. I can't figure out how to fix it this time around.</blockquote>

Verification