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: 8990934" data-attributes="member: 87792">They can get it - with the assumption that the default choice is that they get to cast higher level spells. As the wizard levels up from levels 12 to 19 they get seventh, eighth, and ninth level spells that enable them to do things they couldn't do before. Meanwhile what new abilities does the fighter get between level 12 and level 19 that they couldn't take earlier? Oh that's right? Literally nothing. The fighter is, as mentioned, a barren wasteland after level 11.The wizard should get such options - but their default option should be the ability to cast sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth level spells and they can have an alternative to that - or the warlock can take an alternative to Mystic Arcanum. Meanwhile the fighter gets a new thing rather than an alternative because they are so devoid of new stuff and the barbarian is little better.The archetype is great. The class itself? As I've mentioned is fairly solid up to level 8. I've suggested only a minor tweak before level 8 so they actively learn more skills. The problem is that the fighter is devoid of content or ability to keep up after level 11. And 90% of games finish by level 10.I, and many others, would prefer a tactical fighter rather than the spamtastic fighter we currently have that is the single class that gives up the most in combat when they take an action other than Attack - and would rather than the simple melee hitty class be the barbarian rather than that we get two simple hitters and no actual master of combat using their knowledge of the blade and of combat.Meanwhile the fighter actually adapting their fighting to what the enemies do, and having a collection of tricks and using the battlefield makes the 4e fighter literally the only fighter in any version of D&D that came close to, to me, fulfilling the fantasy of the fighter. The second best version of the fighter I've had came from the Book of Nine Swords and wasn't the warblade but the crusader who also really had to adapt to the environment because the abilities they got each turn were semi-random.  And I'm confused. You think that having actual literal spells is not a problem but having abilities roughly on par with them is for the fantasy????What in the name of the little black pig do you think the fighter should be good at? Because apparently the class called the fighter isn't allowed to be the best at fighting without spells? Meanwhile the wizard is allowed to be the best at spellcasting?So do hit points.When I read what you seem to want out of a fighter - the non-magical overmatched character that holds their own through skill and expertise I do not see a fighter. I see a rogue. Definitely skilled with weapons - and more skilled than others at exploiting advantages (for one they have better skills and for another Cunning Action) while having no actual magic.</blockquote>

Verification