Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scion" data-source="post: 1704765" data-attributes="member: 5777">Yep, didnt say that they were right, but even people on this site have said the same. Crazy as that may be.The game designers and the vast majority of gamers? Well, then I will have to say that you are blatantly wrong.So, now go out and check with the majority of the gamers to prove your point. Oh, and all of the designers (from 3.0 and 3.5). Along with asking what the actual problem was with the spell in question. In addition ask them if casters overpower their games, if so then their opinion is moot because in a properly run game that does not happen.So in my vast experience, along with talking with many people on this board and others, haste was not broken. It could have done away with the extra ac of course, but the extra partial action was not a big deal. You only break even on the third round on this short term buff. Woo.False. Many special conditions have to be added to make the fighter even worthwhile, but they still arent worthwhile in most situations.Unless you mean by 'properly run' as 'coddling the gimp character' then sure.This shows that you have a bias against casters to begin with and so conclusions are suspect. Spells are powerful yes, but then so are noncaster abilities. The fighter does get stronger of course, but at higher levels he is lumped into picking up weaker feats that just arent up to par. Whereas the classes with actual abilities keep getting stronger ones.The barb winds up being able to shrug off 5 points of damage from each hit he takes. How many feats does it take to simulate that? (effectively 3.5 feats along with needing a con of 20+).Narrow? Since we are talking about the fighter, who has no out of combat uses, then talking about in combat uses as being more important is narrow? Hmm..But even that doesnt cover all of what I was saying, simply that if you dont have time to do it (and you only have time when you are ambushing someone, elsewise spending a round in combat to buff up is very difficult to justify) then it doesnt count.So it is only not a problem if you have a campaign where you always know whne you will be fighting, dont have to worry about durations, dont have to worry about limited resources, and ignore any sort of dispelling.Still, in these situations where the psychic warrior is buffing the fighter can drink a potion. So that is mostly a wash.Where is that rolling eyes icon? This comment definately calls for it.Ahh.. no overspecialization? then we are ignoring the very existance of greater weapon focus and greater weapon specialization. As, by definition, they are over specialization.The fighter can pick up a couple of extra combat styles, sure, but this isnt helpful most of the time. If you have a couple of feats for melee, a couple for ranged, a couple for various combat manuevers then overall you have a bit of flexibility but your power level has dropped like a rock.Specialization is how the game works. The reason that multiclassed spellcasters are bad (sans specially made prcs) is because of this. When you over generalize you lose power. D&d rewards specialization (hence the greater weapon focus/specialization, combat trees, whatever). So the fighter doesnt have the trees he needs to be powerful as he should be to begin with and then you want him to diversify further cutting away power. Not good for poor fighter, catch 22.Yep, plenty of times. With the fighter falling in behind. With the barb, ranger, and paladin all on top. I've seen the comparisons, most of them simply say it is good to have a couple of levels of fighter sometimes but bad to stick with the class because others do it better.So you agree that they are lacking and dull, and yet you are trying to say above that they are fine in power compared to other fighter types? Sounds like you were burned by a caster as a baby <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The fighters only need a few thing to be a worthwhile class. More skill points, better skill selection, a couple more class abilities or extra feats (even if these extra feats are even more limited.. say to things like the save boosters, skill focus, and a few other things). How does one make a general? Not with a fighter, no skills. How does one make a combat specialist? Not with a pure fighter, possibly a couple of levels to flesh it out at best. How does one make a good fighter type who can handle many situations? Probably the psychic warrior, he has abilities enough to try. Or you can multiclass a fighter with some other classes to do it. Pure fighter doesnt cut it though. Effectively they have no nitch to fill. Even if they did they wouldnt be up to it without a whole lot of dm help (including piles and piles of feats).</blockquote>

Verification