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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardcoreDandDGirl" data-source="post: 6807618" data-attributes="member: 82746">Ok, so I run in an odd crowd. I am currently playing in a Mutants and Master minds game, a modified 1e game (might as well call it a complete homebrew game with all the mods they made) and a 5e game. The other night though a mixed group of us started talking about the 5e game. The people talking have all played D&D and at least read 5e... however only 2 of the 7 of us (me and my 5e DM) have played more then a single stand alone in the 5e game.So my DM thinks that the champion fighter is for chumps (please don't jump on me his words), and that battle master is what fighters should have been at base. (I take a slightly more neutral stance thinking if the champion fighter and the battle master fighter were 2 different base classes it would have been better.) So while we talked about the game his thoughts came out a few times, but then he said something that surprised me... he hates the human variant (Basically the 3.5 human bonus feat and skill) and the example he kept using was "Why can a human rogue take a feat to get a maneuver die and 2 maneuvers two levels before the elven battle master can, when that is like the main stick of the battle master"now he did sight other examples, just not as venomously. The spell training feat, and some feats that give +1 to a stat came up also... one of our other friends pointed out that +2 to your main stat is better then +1 to every stat, and those feats that give +1 stack with the 2 floating +1s humans have...plus the rest of the feat.So this discussion got much more heated then I thought... and the two main bits (even from people who never played the system at all, just read it) was between the battle master and the human variant. Are those two things a big deal in other circles?</blockquote>

Verification