Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aribar" data-source="post: 6657599" data-attributes="member: 6777974">So is Linguist, Dungeon Delver, Observant, etc. equal or better than a Barbarian's Spirit Seeker and Spirit Walk? Or 90% of the classes' spell lists? Or the half dozen things the Rogue gets? Or are they consolation prizes (that you have to take instead of combat feats) for the class being a bland blank slate because 3E was designed that way? <a href="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430" target="_blank">In fact, let's look at Mearl's design goals</a>.&quot;The fighter is best at fighting&quot; is a terrible design goal to shoot for, but even then it's debatable they reach that because other classes can easily reach or exceed a fighter's damage output or have additional utility in combat. Getting spells is definitely a non-fightery thing like you said, and goes against goal #2 and fighters don't match a wizard's utility in or out of combat at all for #6.Bleh, I think I'm just going to duck out after this post. Maybe some people (myself included) in the &quot;fighter sucks&quot; crowd are bad at explaining things to people that don't see the problem. The bottom line for me is that the 5E fighter, as designed, does not live up to my imagination of what a fighter is. It doesn't have the combat utility or mechanics to support the kind of tactics I like to do in combat (helping allies, forcing enemies to keep me in mind, having ways to shrug off enemy blows, etc.) or the things I want these characters to do outside of combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aribar, post: 6657599, member: 6777974"] So is Linguist, Dungeon Delver, Observant, etc. equal or better than a Barbarian's Spirit Seeker and Spirit Walk? Or 90% of the classes' spell lists? Or the half dozen things the Rogue gets? Or are they consolation prizes (that you have to take instead of combat feats) for the class being a bland blank slate because 3E was designed that way? [URL="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430"]In fact, let's look at Mearl's design goals[/URL]. "The fighter is best at fighting" is a terrible design goal to shoot for, but even then it's debatable they reach that because other classes can easily reach or exceed a fighter's damage output or have additional utility in combat. Getting spells is definitely a non-fightery thing like you said, and goes against goal #2 and fighters don't match a wizard's utility in or out of combat at all for #6. Bleh, I think I'm just going to duck out after this post. Maybe some people (myself included) in the "fighter sucks" crowd are bad at explaining things to people that don't see the problem. The bottom line for me is that the 5E fighter, as designed, does not live up to my imagination of what a fighter is. It doesn't have the combat utility or mechanics to support the kind of tactics I like to do in combat (helping allies, forcing enemies to keep me in mind, having ways to shrug off enemy blows, etc.) or the things I want these characters to do outside of combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification