Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6664833" data-attributes="member: 996">It's possible for a wizard to just hit enemies with his staff, too.  It's just a bad idea.  As you & Sacrosanct both point out, below, sub-optimal choices are sub-optimal... That does beg the question of what Ashkelon was struggling to get out of his benighted character for 13 levels.    [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION], what was the concept you were going for, and what kind of play experience were you trying to wring from it? Those both sound like DM issues.  So your DM is generous with items and over-estimates the threat posed by wizards who set themselves up to be grappled, and his wasn't?  It happens, styles vary.  The game isn't supposed to assume magic items the way 1e, 3e & 4e did, anyway, so characters should (and most classes can) handle level-appropriate challenges without 'em. Starting to sound like the definition of a "trap choice."  Say you wanted a character who's a great athlete. You might pick a Champion Fighter, get your STR as high as you can (20 at 4th level), take Athletics proficiency and figure 'Remarkable Athlete' is going to make you, well, Remarkable, y'know, at Athletics.  But, it turns out, it does nothing, since you're already proficient, and the next high-STR, proficient character is just as good as you - and the one with Expertise, though not quite as strong, is better.  Not the fault of the class that it's nothing special at Athletics, it's your fault for choosing it.  I'm sure it's good for anyone who's single extra attack is that valuable.  Rogue was probably just one example - I'm sure he'd've noticed anyone else in his party who happened to have more than double his per-attack damage potential. Nod, like I said, not quite the swordsman the Mouser is.  Not that the Rogue lacks DPR or doesn't do well with two weapons, just, no multiple attacks, no combat style, it doesn't really scream 'skilled swordsman' by 5e standards.  Then again, what if you did have a character like the Grey Mouser - as skilled as a Rogue, as good in a fight as a Battlemaster, little teeny bit of familiarity with magic - would that really be so broken?   Your position is that something the game was providing before, but isn't now, should be off the table and never considered for re-inclusion.  If that's not what you've been meaning to say, of course, please feel free. That's still at odds with the inclusiveness that was claimed during the playtest.  What people want, sure - what people want excluded, not so valid.  It's not like you can't have a simple, combat-specialized fighter and another sub-class or marital class with more depth (if not quite so much damage) in combat and more meaningful out-of-combat abilities. It really was.  Not only that you could have characters that felt just like each respective edition, but that you could play them at the same table.  Obviously, that one was a little fanciful.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  But the ideal was inclusiveness, and, while 5e retains plenty of d20 era mechanics, it's really much more suggestive of AD&D than 3e or 4e.  That's in spite of 3e classes like the Warlock and Sorcerer making the cut.Not really.  It's one sub-class out of 38.  None of the the other sub-classes 'nod' to 4e.  And, you have to admit, the neo-Vancian casters are a /lot/ closer to fully realizing what they were like in past editions, than the Battlemaster is to the 4e Fighter.  Not that the 4e fighter was really a strong candidate for inclusion:  the Fighter was in every edition, you'd expect it to reflect that (1e saves, 2e DPR, 3e customizeabillity, 4e tanking support, perhaps).  The Warlord is what you'd've expected to see from 4e in the PH1, and it didn't have other versions to compromise among, so there's no reason it couldn't have been a faithful rendition.  Of course, it was cut entirely, never even glimpsed in the playtest.Really, though, this thread is about what's wrong with the fighter in 5e, and that can't just be summed up as "it's not the 4e fighter."  For one thing, it's also very much not the 3.x/Pathfinder fighter......but, more to the topic, no version of the D&D fighter has ever come through and delivered on the archetypes from genre it's left to handle on it's own.  5e was another missed opportunity, in that sense.</blockquote>

Verification