Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6655249" data-attributes="member: 996">That's the 64hp question, isn't it?&nbsp; It can't need more DPR or more attacks/round.&nbsp; Throwing more ASI's at it would just mean 8th-/10th-/nth-best choices.&nbsp; &nbsp;Maybe.&nbsp; You could prettymuch just up and give the Fighter the OOC goodies of the rogue without exactly wrecking game balance (except for the poor Rogue, that is).&nbsp; That would be extreme, but the Rogue sharing Expertise with the Fighter as well as the Bard wouldn't be out of line, for instance.&nbsp; You could spin it a little to make it feel slightly different in implementation...&nbsp;All classes can do things other classes can do.&nbsp; All classes can output some DPR when the chips are down, for instance.&nbsp; They just tend to do them differently.&nbsp; A number of classes output DPR with multiple attacks, but none with as many multiple attacks as a high-level fighter, for instance.&nbsp; Either differently in terms of mechanics (rituals instead of skills, Eldritch Blasts instead of Arrows), or differently in terms of concept (Arcane spells you learned from a book vs arcane spells you learned from a Great Old One vs arcane spells you discovered within yourself because of your grandpappy was a dragon).&nbsp;If there was a &quot;plucky side kick&quot; class, that got d4 HD, only half proficiency in any skills it acquired, 4 ASI's over 20 levels, and nothing else, it might be equally flawless, if that was the design intent.&nbsp; But, the fighter /is/ designed to be simple class that punches out DPR, is not particularly fragile, and doesn't unduly push the player participate much out of combat if he doesn't want to.&nbsp; There's a call for such things - the call mostly comes from folks who will never play a fighter, on behalf of players whom they have no respect for, but it's a call.&nbsp; The fighter's strict inferiority outside of toe-to-toe beatdowns is also a long-standing D&amp;D tradition that 5e dare not abandon, given the high design priority given classic feel.So, while the fighter's inferiority is going to leave it open to criticism, the best way to answer those critics may not be in improving the fighter.&nbsp; Rather, the more expedient solution might be a new martial class or classes.&nbsp; A Warblade for fans of the 3.5 fighter &amp; Bo9S, and a Warlord for fans of the 4e martial source, for instance.&nbsp; Obviously, these classes would have to be - like most classes - broadly superior to the fighter in many ways, but only just able to match the fighters DPR some of the time and with effort, to maintain the 'best at fighting' rubric.&nbsp; Also, obviously, they couldn't be allowed in AL, and would have to be hidden away in some high-walled option ghetto, outside of which their very existence could be plausibly denied.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6655249, member: 996"] That's the 64hp question, isn't it? It can't need more DPR or more attacks/round. Throwing more ASI's at it would just mean 8th-/10th-/nth-best choices. Maybe. You could prettymuch just up and give the Fighter the OOC goodies of the rogue without exactly wrecking game balance (except for the poor Rogue, that is). That would be extreme, but the Rogue sharing Expertise with the Fighter as well as the Bard wouldn't be out of line, for instance. You could spin it a little to make it feel slightly different in implementation... All classes can do things other classes can do. All classes can output some DPR when the chips are down, for instance. They just tend to do them differently. A number of classes output DPR with multiple attacks, but none with as many multiple attacks as a high-level fighter, for instance. Either differently in terms of mechanics (rituals instead of skills, Eldritch Blasts instead of Arrows), or differently in terms of concept (Arcane spells you learned from a book vs arcane spells you learned from a Great Old One vs arcane spells you discovered within yourself because of your grandpappy was a dragon). If there was a "plucky side kick" class, that got d4 HD, only half proficiency in any skills it acquired, 4 ASI's over 20 levels, and nothing else, it might be equally flawless, if that was the design intent. But, the fighter /is/ designed to be simple class that punches out DPR, is not particularly fragile, and doesn't unduly push the player participate much out of combat if he doesn't want to. There's a call for such things - the call mostly comes from folks who will never play a fighter, on behalf of players whom they have no respect for, but it's a call. The fighter's strict inferiority outside of toe-to-toe beatdowns is also a long-standing D&D tradition that 5e dare not abandon, given the high design priority given classic feel. So, while the fighter's inferiority is going to leave it open to criticism, the best way to answer those critics may not be in improving the fighter. Rather, the more expedient solution might be a new martial class or classes. A Warblade for fans of the 3.5 fighter & Bo9S, and a Warlord for fans of the 4e martial source, for instance. Obviously, these classes would have to be - like most classes - broadly superior to the fighter in many ways, but only just able to match the fighters DPR some of the time and with effort, to maintain the 'best at fighting' rubric. Also, obviously, they couldn't be allowed in AL, and would have to be hidden away in some high-walled option ghetto, outside of which their very existence could be plausibly denied. [/QUOTE]

Verification