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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8327214" data-attributes="member: 7030563">I disagree with this and honestly find it upside down (no offense intended).In 1E the fighter was purposely designed by Gygax to be the leader, the best in combat and the overall central character in the adventure.  This was intentional and some of the designers have talked about it during interviews.The fighter was literally the "knight in shining armor" and the other classes were supposed to support him, both in and out of combat.I think 5E spends a lot more time concentrating on the out of combat aspect, particularly with skills and tools and rules to apply those attributes.  In 1E the rules for out of combat play were pretty vague and the examples and modules tended to assume the fighter was the party leader, making this wide open in terms of written rules but with an implied pro-fighter bias to the non-combat aspects.I think some players do focus on combat, but I think that is a minority in 5E.  Few of the characters in my games (either as DM or as a player) are combat optimized.  There is one player that I DM that does this, but that is what he enjoys and he recognizes and admits that he is buidling a melee powercharacter.When I play, I most often play a Rogue, which is not by any measure a powerful class in combat.  They are better than they were in 1E but not the match of really any other class.  I play them specifically because of the out of combat play.  When I play a fighter or a wizard, I always find myself scrounging to figure out how to add more skills because that is what I enjoy in 5e.</blockquote>

Verification