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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sereg" data-source="post: 1471645" data-attributes="member: 18008">Oh andI wanted to address this briefly:No, this is NOT completely ok.  THIS, my friends, is whats wrong with D&D for fighter types.    Hello, a druid can dominate (according to this logic) two out of the three combats in a day, but its ok because he's out of spells?Can a monk wake up and decide he is going to foregoe his (nonexistant) combat power for today in exchange for utility, problem circumventing, healing, wildshape, and a full spell list? I THINK NOT.   The double standard here is very, very stupid, and its driven driving fighting types into the hands of newbies and masochists.   First, high level casters *don't* run out of spells, even dominating 3+ combats a day.  Secondly, even if they DID run out, its STILL not ok.  Until my level 13 fighter can wake up and decide, hey, I think i'll scry and then transport the party to an island in the middle of the sea, and while i'm at it I'll make use of my full spell list for the day (but oh, I can't do any combat today, or maby just a little), then its ok for fighters to suck in fights as much as they do, since everyone would have the same options.Summary:#1 Fighter types do not fight well enough to make up their total lack of options and powers casters gain via spells.#2 Fighter types generally have the WORST defense in the game, instead of the best. With moderate to high stats, heavy armor is a detriment, not a benefit. Furthermore, the more fighterish you get (ranger-->barb-->fighter), the WORSE your saving throws get. Fighters need the BEST defense, not the worst. Fighting is ALL they have. #3 Instead of dictating the outcomes of combats, fighters are rarely more than equal to, and often LESS THAN, a pure caster or hybrid in combats.Sereg</blockquote>

Verification