Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6663829" data-attributes="member: 5834">I do not think the fighter has been short-changed. He could use some more skills for my tastes. I think the majority of his abilities should be at will as in usable like a side kick or in specific circumstances like a jumping kick. I don't think they should be 1/day or things like this. A fighter's power is based on skill, not a force like magic. The fighter is that mundane fighting man that can do what he does all day. His best schtick is killing things with weapons. He's not a ranger outdoorsman or a noble knight paladin. He's the gritty, get his hands dirty soldier that steps into the fray with armor and weapons and kills things. I want him built with that in mind. I feel D&D for the most part captures that with their fighter.Sure, more skills would allow a little more flexibility outside of battle. Maybe you can make a good diplomat. We all know historically the fighting man without skills had a hard time rising in rank to rule. I think you can accomplish that in 5E by spending a feat to get four skills if you want to make that type of guy. There's never been much the fighting man can do other than fighting very well that others can't do out of combat. So that fits as well. Aragorn was highly skilled, but he was also 80 years old and trained by elves. You could emulate this with a background in 5E. It would take some DM allowances and make  your particular fighter a bit more powerful than average. Then you might step on some other player's toes. You have to be careful about that. Not sure what you mean by this. In my experience they are both the best at what they do well, though someone what dependent on build.  If a class casts spells, it's not a martial class even if its damage comes primarily from martial damage as in having to use a weapon to do it. Hmm. I don't agree with that. Paladins and rangers have always been martial classes with a limited spell selection intended to imitate some of the magical capabilities the archetype is based on. They are still considered martials.I like it better than the 3E rogue. Seems more fun to me in the context of the game.Now I'm finding out we differ on what a martial class is. I think if its primary damage comes from a weapon or martial source, it's a martial class. Perhaps. I like the 5E fighter. In play he seems very capable. You do have the option of adding some highly useful non-combat abilities with feats. And you do have the most feats, so you can expend one to obtain a useful non-combat ability easier than other classes. You forget that they must carefully choose those memorized slots. Before a wizard could fill each spell slot with a different spell. He often obtained magic items like bracers of defense to eliminate his need to take mage armor. He might grab a few scrolls to fill in other spells. He can't do that in this edition. My experience with the wizard is it can be very hard to take 10 slots and fill it with the proper variety at say 6th level. It doesn't become much easier as you get higher level. Once you pick those slots, you're locked in for the day. The versatility at first appeared extremely nice. It doesn't work in play like you would expect. There aren't a lot of "I win" spells in the game. All the damage spells don't come close to matching martial output. The effect spells are limited and short duration. You could cast haste and it lasts a minute no matter what level you are or what slot you use. Long spell durations in older editions gave a lot of bang for the buck for a particular spell. In this new edition coupled with the Concentration mechanic and short durations, you really have to pick carefully. A spell is usually good for one combat. So one combat spell equals one combat. In previous editions you might cast something like stoneskin and have it last all day. Durations were tied to level rather than a flat number. It makes things very different mechanically for the wizard or any caster. The spell slots and neo-Vancian memorization create the illusion of more, while the other spell limitations like Concentration and short durations actually lead to less in play. You pretty much have to accept when you cast something it is one combat and done. Woe to you if you get something dispelled. It is gone. Dispel works automatically if appropriate level. That can be painful for certain classes like the warlock.Exactly, More valuable and careful in use. Don't blow them off and expect to rest. You better be careful using them or you might find yourself in a lot of trouble with no teleport or invisbility scroll to rely on. That martial can kill you because your AC and hit points suck badly. You have no out. Do not blow your slots unless you're sure you're going to win. If you don't win, you're going to die.Wizards are amongst the easiest class to hit unless you multiclass into a class that gets armor. At higher levels even armor starts to fail with Bounded Accuracy.5E is a very different game for casters. You have to be much more careful and thrifty with spell slots even with greater spell versatility, which is more of an illusion than something that truly has an impact in the game. It really wasn't very viable in 3rd edition. Skill points too low. Not a cross class skill in 3E or a class skill in Pathfinder. Pathfinder warriors were often reliant on heavy armor even if dex-based because it provided the highest AC by quite a large margin. If you wore less than heavy armor, no access to heavy fortification, the most desirable armor modification due to the power of critical hits. Then there was the negative modifier to Stealth for wearing armor. I'm including 3E. A dex-based stealth fighter in 3E often wasn't optimal like it is in 5E.</blockquote>

Verification