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="Thanee" data-source="post: 1706142" data-attributes="member: 478">Just noticed, that I havn't seen this post yet. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" />Well, everyone (almost <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=";)" />) knows, that Harm and Haste have been the most complained about spells in 3.0. And they were changed in 3.5, which makes obvious, that the game designers agreed, otherwise they wouldn't see the need to change them, huh?It just shows, that I understand how magic works and that it needs considerable counteraction to be held in line.No, you say a psychic warrior (w/o "free" power manifestations) is inferior to a fighter, but you only compare combat uses then and ignore all the other abilities psychic warriors get. To the contrary you say, that every class is better than the fighter, since they get no out-of combat cool stuff (and are not THAT MUCH better at fighting as they should be to compensate for that lack, which is something I can agree with, BTW).Your arguments are completely inconsistent at that point.You simply ignore what doesn't suit you at the moment.You always compare at the best/worst possible situation for your stance.Maybe you should try to look at the whole picture once? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Also, you always try to tell me, what I think, which - to this point - has always been wrong, and usually been utterly and completely wrong as in the complete opposite of my opinion. <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=";)" />No, that's just specialization. Overspecialization is, for example, to use pretty much all feats to be better with a single combat style.Why is that? You say yourself, that the later feat choices are weak. More options sounds like a better choice to me. Avoids some of the diminishing returns you are complaining about for the high level fighter.To a degree, yes. Did I say anything else?I havn't called it specialization for a reason... <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=";)" />Are we reading the same board!? Maybe you are confusing something here...The last dozens of pages long barbarian versus fighter thread had the majority of posters on the side of the fighter, for example.The last poll for class power had the fighter ranked up clearly above average.No, I'm saying they are somewhat dull, but do not lack in power compared to other fighter types. I don't see the connection between these two.Dullness and power are two completely different things.And how does that fit to your opinion, that fighters are the greatest suck on earth and are completely obsolete, useless and pointless, if they only "need a few thing to be worthwhile" !?A fighter is not a general. A fighter is a fighter.Well, every class is better with prestige classes, even a wizard cannot compare to a wizard/archmage or whatnot.No warrior class ('cept the paladin maybe) is played straight to 20 levels. They are all better off multiclassing.That's not a specific problem with the fighter as you claim.It's a problem with prestige classes being too powerful compared to base classes and multiclassing being too good for warrior types (while being too bad for spellcasters).If you remove the fighter completely, this stuff is still there for sure.And why does it make the fighter completely useless, just because it is not the most powerful choice?And even if the fighter is only used for multiclassing, that is a purpose, too, which makes the class useful.ByeThanee</blockquote>

Verification