Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2847848" data-attributes="member: 22779">Something I don't understand about these recent spate of threads. Everyone compares these classes to fighters and then complains about how they don't stack up in a fight.The ONLY thing a fighter does well is fight.&nbsp; He has no spells, no special abilities, nothing.&nbsp; The only thing a fighter does better than anyone else is hit things.&nbsp; Why does everyone feel that classes that don't fight as well as fighters are somehow weaker?&nbsp; Doesn't matter if it's barbarians, monks or even rangers.&nbsp; The fighter's schtick is ultimate damage dealer.&nbsp; He might get crowded a bit on that from the Barbie, but, not always.&nbsp; It would be much better to compare a ranger to a rogue or, well, monk to see if his roll as light skirmisher is filled or not.Why does everyone want to take away the one thing that fighters do best?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2847848, member: 22779"] Something I don't understand about these recent spate of threads. Everyone compares these classes to fighters and then complains about how they don't stack up in a fight. The ONLY thing a fighter does well is fight. He has no spells, no special abilities, nothing. The only thing a fighter does better than anyone else is hit things. Why does everyone feel that classes that don't fight as well as fighters are somehow weaker? Doesn't matter if it's barbarians, monks or even rangers. The fighter's schtick is ultimate damage dealer. He might get crowded a bit on that from the Barbie, but, not always. It would be much better to compare a ranger to a rogue or, well, monk to see if his roll as light skirmisher is filled or not. Why does everyone want to take away the one thing that fighters do best? [/QUOTE]

Verification