Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7187665" data-attributes="member: 996">Nothing complex, just what's actually in the PH.Number (or absence) of dedicated out-of-combat class features, for a simple start.&nbsp; Then number/versatility/flexibility of any dual-use features.The Fighter starts out with two skills from a nothing-special list, so that's a wash.It adds bonus ASIs, which are few (two, at 6th &amp; 14th), dual-use, chosen at level up, and can't be changed, so they rank very low on flexibility.The Champion adds 'Remarkable' Athlete, which, if you're benefiting from it in an out-of-combat check means you don't have proficiency, and are already behind the curve.&nbsp; The BM adds cute know your enemy tricks, which are little more than a ribbon. The EK, of course, adds spellcasting, though the out of combat application waits until he grows out of the abjuration/evocation limitation - still limited as it is, pretty fantastic by fighter standards.Now, every (sub-)class with casting but the AT (which still arguably edges out the EK's out-of-combat casting potential) beats that by light years, with casting alone, since 5e spontaneous slots are dual-use, numerous, and extremely flexible.&nbsp; That doesn't stop some of them from /also/ having nice non-combat features, though.Frankly, that's more than enough for the Fighter (and probably some of the other non-casters) to clearly need a lot of work on the non-combat front, already.&nbsp; The remaining comparisons among the 5 benighted non-magic-using sub-classes - we already glanced at the berserker, and it's pretty sad, too - are, of course, narrower.&nbsp; The rogue should come out fine, though.&nbsp; Expertise, alone, leaves the non-casting fighters in the dust.(Edit:&nbsp; Actually, on further review, 'pretty sad' doesn't do the out-of-combat incompetence of the berserker sufficient injustice. It's on the wrong side of that crack in the sidewalk from the Fighter.&nbsp; Ouch. )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7187665, member: 996"] Nothing complex, just what's actually in the PH. Number (or absence) of dedicated out-of-combat class features, for a simple start. Then number/versatility/flexibility of any dual-use features. The Fighter starts out with two skills from a nothing-special list, so that's a wash. It adds bonus ASIs, which are few (two, at 6th & [i]14th[/i]), dual-use, chosen at level up, and can't be changed, so they rank very low on flexibility. The Champion adds 'Remarkable' Athlete, which, if you're benefiting from it in an out-of-combat check means you don't have proficiency, and are already behind the curve. The BM adds cute know your enemy tricks, which are little more than a ribbon. The EK, of course, adds spellcasting, though the out of combat application waits until he grows out of the abjuration/evocation limitation - still limited as it is, pretty fantastic by fighter standards. Now, every (sub-)class with casting but the AT (which still arguably edges out the EK's out-of-combat casting potential) beats that by light years, with casting alone, since 5e spontaneous slots are dual-use, numerous, and extremely flexible. That doesn't stop some of them from /also/ having nice non-combat features, though. Frankly, that's more than enough for the Fighter (and probably some of the other non-casters) to clearly need a lot of work on the non-combat front, already. The remaining comparisons among the 5 benighted non-magic-using sub-classes - we already glanced at the berserker, and it's pretty sad, too - are, of course, narrower. The rogue should come out fine, though. Expertise, alone, leaves the non-casting fighters in the dust. [i](Edit: Actually, on further review, 'pretty sad' doesn't do the out-of-combat incompetence of the berserker sufficient injustice. It's on the wrong side of that crack in the sidewalk from the Fighter. Ouch. )[/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification