Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frozenstep" data-source="post: 7914338" data-attributes="member: 7020624">You say it's a generalist approach, but it's still an approach that is highly defensive in nature. It's the classic heavily armored warrior with a shield, it'd be really weird if it was only half as good as the barbarian with a greataxe at taking damage. Don't...both of them rely on damage to be a target at all? The point was that a barbarian can go ahead and focus on damage with their two handed weapon, but I guess if you're playing a featless game then the benefit of that quickly drops. But at least the barbarian can easily switch weapons and pick up a shield if they need to, since they don't have a fighting style to worry about. Heck, they can use a shield in those rageless combats.Yeah, resources are not guaranteed, but neither is surviving a difficult fight. We can get into a whole argument over whether being good 100% of the time is better then being able to spend a resource to become better when it really matters is worth it or not, but it's really going to come down to your party and campaign. Sometimes one or the other is better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frozenstep, post: 7914338, member: 7020624"] You say it's a generalist approach, but it's still an approach that is highly defensive in nature. It's the classic heavily armored warrior with a shield, it'd be really weird if it was only half as good as the barbarian with a greataxe at taking damage. Don't...both of them rely on damage to be a target at all? The point was that a barbarian can go ahead and focus on damage with their two handed weapon, but I guess if you're playing a featless game then the benefit of that quickly drops. But at least the barbarian can easily switch weapons and pick up a shield if they need to, since they don't have a fighting style to worry about. Heck, they can use a shield in those rageless combats. Yeah, resources are not guaranteed, but neither is surviving a difficult fight. We can get into a whole argument over whether being good 100% of the time is better then being able to spend a resource to become better when it really matters is worth it or not, but it's really going to come down to your party and campaign. Sometimes one or the other is better. [/QUOTE]

Verification