Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6661684" data-attributes="member: 22779">Umm, a Troll has 84 HP.&nbsp; A 10th level or lower fighter, which is what we're talking about, is still only doing about 80 points with feats and action surge, and against an AC of 15 is hitting about 50% (barring cheesing out with things like bless, which the fighter can't cast himself)&nbsp; I suppose a Battlemaster blowing all his superiority dice might be able to kill a troll, if he's lucky and hits all four times while using Feint to gain advantage) but, then he's done for the day.&nbsp; Again, presuming the use of feats, a Great Weapon Fighter, and some fairly lucky die rolls.&nbsp; He might do it, but, it's not bloody likely.20th level fighter?&nbsp; Why even bring it up?But, on the topic of limitations, why are fighters locked into specific fighting styles?&nbsp; I choose my fighting style at 1st level (and again at 10th or 11th) but, I cannot change that once it's made.&nbsp; So, if I choose a defensive style fighter, but the group finds a really cool two handed magic sword, I can't really use it because I lose my class abilities.&nbsp; It would be like a wizard who loses access to his spells if he picks up a certain kind of staff.&nbsp; Sure, that staff is cool, but, how cool would it have to be to give up spells?&nbsp; Why can't I change my specialisation after a long rest?&nbsp; Something as simple as that would make a big difference in granting fighters more breadth without increasing power.&nbsp; So, I know that if we're going to face flying opponents tomorrow, I choose archery.&nbsp; If I know we're going to be fighting lots of mooks, maybe I go defensive.&nbsp; So on and so forth.As it stands, fighters are the &quot;simple class&quot;.&nbsp; And there is certainly room in the game for a simple class.&nbsp; I have no problems with that.&nbsp; I LIKE fighters.&nbsp; But, I also think there is room in the game for a complex class.&nbsp; No one is saying replace existing fighters.&nbsp; What we want is more complexity.&nbsp; We want a fighter subclass with more breadth.&nbsp; So, you can stick to your Battlemaster or whatever makes you happy, and I can get my Crusader (to pick a name from Bo9S) or Swordsage and we're both happy.Why does the existence of options for me reduce your enjoyment?&nbsp; Who cares if I get a fighter that looks like a wizard?&nbsp; Why is this a zero sum game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6661684, member: 22779"] Umm, a Troll has 84 HP. A 10th level or lower fighter, which is what we're talking about, is still only doing about 80 points with feats and action surge, and against an AC of 15 is hitting about 50% (barring cheesing out with things like bless, which the fighter can't cast himself) I suppose a Battlemaster blowing all his superiority dice might be able to kill a troll, if he's lucky and hits all four times while using Feint to gain advantage) but, then he's done for the day. Again, presuming the use of feats, a Great Weapon Fighter, and some fairly lucky die rolls. He might do it, but, it's not bloody likely. 20th level fighter? Why even bring it up? But, on the topic of limitations, why are fighters locked into specific fighting styles? I choose my fighting style at 1st level (and again at 10th or 11th) but, I cannot change that once it's made. So, if I choose a defensive style fighter, but the group finds a really cool two handed magic sword, I can't really use it because I lose my class abilities. It would be like a wizard who loses access to his spells if he picks up a certain kind of staff. Sure, that staff is cool, but, how cool would it have to be to give up spells? Why can't I change my specialisation after a long rest? Something as simple as that would make a big difference in granting fighters more breadth without increasing power. So, I know that if we're going to face flying opponents tomorrow, I choose archery. If I know we're going to be fighting lots of mooks, maybe I go defensive. So on and so forth. As it stands, fighters are the "simple class". And there is certainly room in the game for a simple class. I have no problems with that. I LIKE fighters. But, I also think there is room in the game for a complex class. No one is saying replace existing fighters. What we want is more complexity. We want a fighter subclass with more breadth. So, you can stick to your Battlemaster or whatever makes you happy, and I can get my Crusader (to pick a name from Bo9S) or Swordsage and we're both happy. Why does the existence of options for me reduce your enjoyment? Who cares if I get a fighter that looks like a wizard? Why is this a zero sum game? [/QUOTE]

Verification