Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 6655726" data-attributes="member: 66434">Overall, the common list of complaints about the fighter have little to do with the fighter.&nbsp; I enjoy playing fighters and in the only 5E game that I get to play (rather than run), I am playing a fighter. The underlying issue that will continue having the D&amp;D community chase it's tail is that EVERY class is fairly competent, and effective in combat. If the fighter is to stand out and be regarded as an expert in that field then this simply CANNOT be the case. That is really all there is to it. As long as overcoming encounters and primarily fighting is how XP is earned, then having some classes perform poorly in combat won't be an option. Treasure for XP had a purpose. Spell disruption in combat had a purpose. A thief class that was really weak in combat had a purpose. Lets say there was a game with a Hacker class. This class was supposed to the all around best a hacking but couldn't do a whole lot else. Lets also say that hacking was a fairly important part of the game. Looking through the classes you see that all of them are about 80-90% as good at hacking as the Hacker class but they all got lots of other cool abilities too. Why play a Hacker? If the fighter is to be truly the best in combat: (for starters)- no more attack cantrips- spell declaration and interruption- rogues only get SA when unnoticed from behind. So basically once per typical combat. - no more than a d6 hit die for non-fighter types. Wizards should get a d4.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 6655726, member: 66434"] Overall, the common list of complaints about the fighter have little to do with the fighter. I enjoy playing fighters and in the only 5E game that I get to play (rather than run), I am playing a fighter. The underlying issue that will continue having the D&D community chase it's tail is that EVERY class is fairly competent, and effective in combat. If the fighter is to stand out and be regarded as an expert in that field then this simply CANNOT be the case. That is really all there is to it. As long as overcoming encounters and primarily fighting is how XP is earned, then having some classes perform poorly in combat won't be an option. Treasure for XP had a [I]purpose.[/I] Spell disruption in combat had a [I]purpose.[/I] A thief class that was really weak in combat had a [I]purpose.[/I] Lets say there was a game with a Hacker class. This class was supposed to the all around best a hacking but couldn't do a whole lot else. Lets also say that hacking was a fairly important part of the game. Looking through the classes you see that all of them are about 80-90% as good at hacking as the Hacker class but they all got lots of other cool abilities too. Why play a Hacker? If the fighter is to be truly the best in combat: (for starters) - no more attack cantrips - spell declaration and interruption - rogues only get SA when [I]unnoticed[/I] from behind. So basically once per typical combat. - no more than a d6 hit die for non-fighter types. Wizards should get a d4. [/QUOTE]

Verification