Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dan'L" data-source="post: 4753476" data-attributes="member: 68954">Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another?&nbsp; Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks?&nbsp; 1-handed, 2-handed, BRV, Tempest -- they're all basic fighters.I understood the statement &quot;Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is&quot; to be referring to the Fighter class, which now has four builds, in comparison to the other defender classes.&nbsp; Not being the one who made the statement, I can't be 100% sure that's what was meant, but that's how I took it.So, arguing that one fighter build is stickier or tougher than another does zip in refuting the assertion that fighter is stickier/tougher than: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden.&nbsp; Now, I haven't seen the Warden in play yet, but I'll vouch that the Fighter is stickier/tougher than the Paladins and Swordmages that I've seen.-Dan'L</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dan'L, post: 4753476, member: 68954"] Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another? Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks? 1-handed, 2-handed, BRV, Tempest -- they're all basic fighters. I understood the statement "Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is" to be referring to the Fighter class, which now has four builds, in comparison to the other defender classes. Not being the one who made the statement, I can't be 100% sure that's what was meant, but that's how I took it. So, arguing that one fighter build is stickier or tougher than another does zip in refuting the assertion that fighter is stickier/tougher than: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden. Now, I haven't seen the Warden in play yet, but I'll vouch that the Fighter is stickier/tougher than the Paladins and Swordmages that I've seen. -Dan'L [/QUOTE]

Verification