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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8989990" data-attributes="member: 87792">People don't play fighters for at least four reasons:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They don't fulfil the intended promise made by D&D Next in the design document which is, in so many words to be the best at fighting. (Something which should be contrasted with the wizard being the best at spellcasting and demonstrate that being the best at something is not intended to make the best class).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Outside combat they are the lowest common denominator commoner class, with the fewest skills in the game, armour getting in the way, and no abilities that help them do anything that a commoner with no additional class features can't.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In combat they are boring, playing patty-cake with the enemy until someone's hit points run out rather than actually doing interesting things round understanding and meaningfully changing the combat. (This is as much a problem with the 5e hit point escalation as anything)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A fighter isn't what they want to play (which is fair enough)</li> </ol>I know several people, myself included who consider the average 5e fighter to be an NPC snoozefest of a class but love fighters who actually get options, whether it's 4e style tactical fighters, echo knights, or other larger than life types. You are literally the only person I have ever seen anything from who likes 5e's weak and generally boring fighters. So could you explain what you like so much about the spamtastic 4e fighter that has no more out of combat agency than a commoner please? Because I have literally never met anyone who had this attitude.Also your class is far more important than your race. Why should your race let you shatter the laws of physics and your class not unless you use spells?</blockquote>

Verification