Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6666119" data-attributes="member: 996">There are no 'levels' of BM maneuvers, they're all essentially &quot;3rd level&quot; abilities.Of course, everything that includes proficiency 'scales' with level, cantrip DCs, spell DCs, attack rolls, etc... Cantrips, for instance, have damage that scales with level, while spell scale with slot level, and, very obviously, higher level spells do more than lower level ones.&nbsp; There's an expectation built into the class/level system that an ability you get at higher level is somehow better than one you get at higher level.&nbsp; Maneuvers aren't like that, they're the opposite:&nbsp; you generally pick up the best ones first (and it's not like the best maneuvers are over-powered for 3rd level abilities).It's a long thread, to me it looks like /you're/ shifting goalposts.&nbsp; You went from a comparison of fighter bonus feats to a comparison of leader-style maneuvers.&nbsp;It's not assuming anything about what anyone /will/ take, only acknowledging what they could take.&nbsp; Anything that's not unique to a class does less to differentiate that class than a unique feature would.&nbsp; Similarly, an ability that doesn't &quot;rise above&quot; in any sense is a lot less defining.&nbsp; Not only do lackluster abilities fail to define a class, they can't do much to balance it, either.&nbsp; It's also not the 3.x fighter.&nbsp; But, sure, it's the 2e fighter, and arguably shines compared to the even earlier incarnations of the class (though, some of us may miss the incredible saves high-level fighters tended to have in AD&amp;D).&nbsp; It's not that far off the Essentials Slayer and even Knight, either - hardly surprising.&nbsp; Also, I think &quot;what's wrong with the fighter&quot; and &quot;how do you fix the fighter&quot; are two very different questions.&nbsp; There's obviously a lot you could do in 3e or 4e that you can't do in 5e, and the fighter is the class that is closest to trying to do those kinds of concepts.&nbsp; You might say that's more properly something wrong with 5e for lacking some additional martial class or classes...But, it does do 2e fighters, Essentials Slayers, archers, and even the long-problematic 'light fighter' perfectly well, and part of that is the 5e Fighter's mutli-attack-driven DPR, which makes 'fixing' it problematic.&nbsp; You can't just give the fighter 5 more bonus feats to make it (proportionately) &quot;like the 3.5 fighter,&quot; for instance, because that'd break it pretty conclusively.IMHO, the 'fix' would be a new martial class or two, not a major overhaul of the fighter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6666119, member: 996"] There are no 'levels' of BM maneuvers, they're all essentially "3rd level" abilities. Of course, everything that includes proficiency 'scales' with level, cantrip DCs, spell DCs, attack rolls, etc... Cantrips, for instance, have damage that scales with level, while spell scale with slot level, and, very obviously, higher level spells do more than lower level ones. There's an expectation built into the class/level system that an ability you get at higher level is somehow better than one you get at higher level. Maneuvers aren't like that, they're the opposite: you generally pick up the best ones first (and it's not like the best maneuvers are over-powered for 3rd level abilities). It's a long thread, to me it looks like /you're/ shifting goalposts. You went from a comparison of fighter bonus feats to a comparison of leader-style maneuvers. It's not assuming anything about what anyone /will/ take, only acknowledging what they could take. Anything that's not unique to a class does less to differentiate that class than a unique feature would. Similarly, an ability that doesn't "rise above" in any sense is a lot less defining. Not only do lackluster abilities fail to define a class, they can't do much to balance it, either. It's also not the 3.x fighter. But, sure, it's the 2e fighter, and arguably shines compared to the even earlier incarnations of the class (though, some of us may miss the incredible saves high-level fighters tended to have in AD&D). It's not that far off the Essentials Slayer and even Knight, either - hardly surprising. Also, I think "what's wrong with the fighter" and "how do you fix the fighter" are two very different questions. There's obviously a lot you could do in 3e or 4e that you can't do in 5e, and the fighter is the class that is closest to trying to do those kinds of concepts. You might say that's more properly something wrong with 5e for lacking some additional martial class or classes... But, it does do 2e fighters, Essentials Slayers, archers, and even the long-problematic 'light fighter' perfectly well, and part of that is the 5e Fighter's mutli-attack-driven DPR, which makes 'fixing' it problematic. You can't just give the fighter 5 more bonus feats to make it (proportionately) "like the 3.5 fighter," for instance, because that'd break it pretty conclusively. IMHO, the 'fix' would be a new martial class or two, not a major overhaul of the fighter. [/QUOTE]

Verification