Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8990935" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You have, again, resorted to an argument that boils down to "I don't have a problem, so there isn't anything to have a problem about. If you're still upset, that's your fault for thinking you like Fighters when you don't." It is, quite literally, "Because ECMO3 does not have a problem with it, you shouldn't either, or you should play something else instead." Your experience does not invalidate the experience of others, and is not a reason why things cannot change. It is, at best, a reason why any changes should be well-justified and relatively cautious, not upending the whole world, but targeted. Feats, by their nature in 5e being pretty limited (from what I can tell, there aren't even 100 feats in official 5e.)Many, many players love the concept of the Fighter. It's pretty much the "everyman" class, and often the one most similar to the "main character" of a story--of course it will be beloved. But the concept of the class is not axiomatically identical to the mechanical expression of that class. Why should folks who adore the concept, but cannot stand the mechanical expression, heed your "it's not for you, play something else" question? Especially when 5e explicitly said the Fighter was supposed to be a big tent, welcoming in a variety of preferences (it was supposed to absorb the 4e Warlord, explicitly by designer intent, for example.)</blockquote>