Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7833983" data-attributes="member: 996">Nope.&nbsp; The fighter is, if anything, more linear than back in the day.&nbsp; The 1e fighter's attacks became more likely to hit as he leveled - much more likely, and improved faster than other classes, and topped out superior - and he (very slowly) got multiple attacks.&nbsp; BAB was similar in 3e, though iterative attacks were less of a multiplier than just full additional attacks.The 5e fighter /does/ get full-bonus extra attacks (yay!), but, thanks to BA, his chance to hit relative to similar-level opponents does not go up much, nor does it advance any faster or higher than anyone else's.&nbsp; So, quite linear, if unsteady, primarily through Extra Attack.Likewise, the Fighter's Action Surge stays the same for virtually his whole career.&nbsp; Now, if Action Surge went from 1/short rest to 5/short rest, and gained radically in versatility as it did, y'might have a point.But it doesn't.OK, yes, E6 /was/ a change in how higher levels were regarded, in that play above 6th was recognized as problematic, rather than play above about 10th.&nbsp; And the point of E6 - the 'E' in E6 - was to continue to advance and enjoy 'Epic' play as you continue to gain feats (so an E6 character could get wild stuff like WWA).If it was the stronghold-building &amp; politicking story style of high-level 1e that had been putting people off, 3e abandoning that should have made high level /more/ popular.&nbsp; OTOH, if it was LFQW &amp; attendant caster dominance and playability breakdown that had made high-level play unpopular the whole time, then the whacktastic crazy-brokenness of CoDzilla and Tier 1 casters and Polymoprh shenanigans doing the same even sooner, would have hurt the accessibility of high level play even more.The development of E6 is consistent with one of those.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7833983, member: 996"] Nope. The fighter is, if anything, more linear than back in the day. The 1e fighter's attacks became more likely to hit as he leveled - much more likely, and improved faster than other classes, and topped out superior - and he (very slowly) got multiple attacks. BAB was similar in 3e, though iterative attacks were less of a multiplier than just full additional attacks. The 5e fighter /does/ get full-bonus extra attacks (yay!), but, thanks to BA, his chance to hit relative to similar-level opponents does not go up much, nor does it advance any faster or higher than anyone else's. So, quite linear, if unsteady, primarily through Extra Attack. Likewise, the Fighter's Action Surge stays the same for virtually his whole career. Now, if Action Surge went from 1/short rest to 5/short rest, and gained radically in versatility as it did, y'might have a point. But it doesn't. OK, yes, E6 /was/ a change in how higher levels were regarded, in that play above 6th was recognized as problematic, rather than play above about 10th. And the point of E6 - the 'E' in E6 - was to continue to advance and enjoy 'Epic' play as you continue to gain feats (so an E6 character could get wild stuff like WWA). If it was the stronghold-building & politicking story style of high-level 1e that had been putting people off, 3e abandoning that should have made high level /more/ popular. OTOH, if it was LFQW & attendant caster dominance and playability breakdown that had made high-level play unpopular the whole time, then the whacktastic crazy-brokenness of CoDzilla and Tier 1 casters and Polymoprh shenanigans doing the same even sooner, would have hurt the accessibility of high level play even more. The development of E6 is consistent with one of those. [/QUOTE]

Verification