Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 4938861" data-attributes="member: 52073">Generally, when the debate is about &quot;fighter vs. wizard&quot; it means &quot;primary martial types vs. full casters,&quot; so &quot;fighters can't have nice things,&quot; &quot;fighters have issues without lots of magic items,&quot; etc. includes other full BAB classes.Not all that much.&nbsp; In 1e and 2e, you could make all your attacks and still move, and only fighters (and in this case I do mean just the fighter and its subclasses) could make multiple attacks.&nbsp; Changing the game to require full attacks in 3e was a step backwards.Not their flavor?&nbsp; It used to be (again, 1e and 2e) that by the time you got past, say, 13th level, fighters made pretty much every save on a 2+.&nbsp; Fighters were just as much the &quot;Puny wizard, your spells cannot stop me!&quot; type as the &quot;I'm going to bash your head in with a blunt object!&quot; type.&nbsp; Mettle, evasion, save bonuses, and other ways to avoid/ignore debuffs are right up their alley.Both are good ideas; more feats are always helpful, and taking the normal Focus/Spec chain is usually worthless.Having seen your arguments and houserules, I don't see how this is the case.&nbsp; Maneuvers could just as easily be feats, you let fighters gain feats via a version of IL, and so forth...yet warblades are horribly broken?&nbsp; Steel Wind is Cleave, but you don't have to drop an enemy for the second attack.&nbsp; Wolf Fang Strike is TWF, but you don't take the -2 penalty on each.&nbsp; The entire Setting Sun discipline is &quot;I can do combat maneuvers against bigger foes without sucking.&quot;&nbsp; All of these &quot;broken&quot; maneuvers are basically taking the sub-par feats and making them usable.If you consider core melee to be mostly fine and ToB and XPH (some of the most balanced books in 3e) to be broken, I don't know if any conversation about the fighter's (= core melee's) problems can have a common balance point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 4938861, member: 52073"] Generally, when the debate is about "fighter vs. wizard" it means "primary martial types vs. full casters," so "[I]fighters[/I] can't have nice things," "[I]fighters[/I] have issues without lots of magic items," etc. includes other full BAB classes. Not all that much. In 1e and 2e, you could make all your attacks and still move, and only fighters (and in this case I [I]do[/I] mean just the fighter and its subclasses) could make multiple attacks. Changing the game to require full attacks in 3e was a step backwards. Not their flavor? It used to be (again, 1e and 2e) that by the time you got past, say, 13th level, fighters made pretty much every save on a 2+. Fighters were just as much the "Puny wizard, your spells cannot stop me!" type as the "I'm going to bash your head in with a blunt object!" type. Mettle, evasion, save bonuses, and other ways to avoid/ignore debuffs are right up their alley. Both are good ideas; more feats are always helpful, and taking the normal Focus/Spec chain is usually worthless. Having seen your arguments and houserules, I don't see how this is the case. Maneuvers could just as easily be feats, you let fighters gain feats via a version of IL, and so forth...yet warblades are horribly broken? Steel Wind is Cleave, but you don't have to drop an enemy for the second attack. Wolf Fang Strike is TWF, but you don't take the -2 penalty on each. The entire Setting Sun discipline is "I can do combat maneuvers against bigger foes without sucking." All of these "broken" maneuvers are basically taking the sub-par feats and making them usable. If you consider core melee to be mostly fine and ToB and XPH (some of the most balanced books in 3e) to be broken, I don't know if any conversation about the fighter's (= core melee's) problems can have a common balance point. [/QUOTE]

Verification