Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6254108" data-attributes="member: 87792">And&nbsp; this is where everyone talks past each other.&nbsp; There are two meanings&nbsp; of the word &quot;fighter&quot; that are being used interchangeably and they&nbsp; aren't the same.<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A fighter is someone who focusses on armed and normally melee combat as their main skill and trade.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A Fighter is a proper noun referring to a specific class - in other words either an implementation of the fighter archetype or a specific subset of fighters within the game universe</li>
</ul>The&nbsp; Fighter is a very very boring implementation of the fighter archetype.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's one with minimal competence outside combat (rather than being a&nbsp; well rounded athlete as you'd expect) and where the best tactic in melee&nbsp; almost invariably involves walking up to an enemy and spamming the same&nbsp; attack rather than worrying much about things like tactics..The&nbsp; Warblade might not be a Fighter but they are definitely a fighter -&nbsp; something covered by the archetype Fighters are supposed to reflect but&nbsp; don't do a good job of.&nbsp; Therefore warblades might not make Fighters&nbsp; more interesting but they are an interesting version of Fighters.&nbsp; That&nbsp; not all fighters are warblades is irrelevant.No more interesting than the Fighter.Because that's really relevant for making melee combatants interesting.Which ones?&nbsp; The ones I checked are all spam classes just as the fighter is.Possibly&nbsp; - if you count the Synthesist Summoner and the Magus?&nbsp; Because other&nbsp; than the spellcasters, all the Pathfighter fighter options suffer the&nbsp; same core problems as the Fighter.&nbsp; Spam, spam, spammety spam.&nbsp; And&nbsp; little worry about tactics at any other level.&nbsp; To be interesting first a&nbsp; fighter should be competent (which means we need more skill points),&nbsp; and second they need to think about things like pacing themselves and&nbsp; have the options they have available changing as the fight goes on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6254108, member: 87792"] And this is where everyone talks past each other. There are two meanings of the word "fighter" that are being used interchangeably and they aren't the same. [LIST] [*]A fighter is someone who focusses on armed and normally melee combat as their main skill and trade. [*]A Fighter is a proper noun referring to a specific class - in other words either an implementation of the fighter archetype or a specific subset of fighters within the game universe [/LIST] The Fighter is a very very boring implementation of the fighter archetype. It's one with minimal competence outside combat (rather than being a well rounded athlete as you'd expect) and where the best tactic in melee almost invariably involves walking up to an enemy and spamming the same attack rather than worrying much about things like tactics.. The Warblade might not be a Fighter but they are definitely a fighter - something covered by the archetype Fighters are supposed to reflect but don't do a good job of. Therefore warblades might not make Fighters more interesting but they are an interesting version of Fighters. That not all fighters are warblades is irrelevant. No more interesting than the Fighter. Because that's really relevant for making melee combatants interesting. Which ones? The ones I checked are all spam classes just as the fighter is. Possibly - if you count the Synthesist Summoner and the Magus? Because other than the spellcasters, all the Pathfighter fighter options suffer the same core problems as the Fighter. Spam, spam, spammety spam. And little worry about tactics at any other level. To be interesting first a fighter should be competent (which means we need more skill points), and second they need to think about things like pacing themselves and have the options they have available changing as the fight goes on. [/QUOTE]

Verification