Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6666133" data-attributes="member: 996">As mechanically different as the were, they did have a little of the same feel when it came to tactical depth (3.x actually had a fair amount of tactical depth, iif, it didn't degenerate into rocket tag, that is).  I was deeply disappointed with the 13A fighter.  The only thing it has going for it is that you don't really even need to be awake to play it.  It can just sorta run on autopilot.  It's the perfect class for players who don't really want to be playing the game, at all. It really was.  4e needed roles for the other two pillars, really.  The saving grace was the Skill Challenge, which kept everyone participating in out-of-combat encounters, even if the fighter's sad, traditional, skill list kept him from making more meaningful or dramatic contributions in most of them.  (And, particularly annoying:  the only 'interaction' skill they gave the poor fighter was Intimidate, yet several of the sample 'negotiation' Challenges made that skill an auto-failure, so the fighter being worse than useless outside a fight was just as big a stereotype as every.) Exploits could do some fairly remarkable stuff, though the mythic heroism was by no means limited to the fighter, and, between Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies (like 'Demi-God,' right there in the PH1), they were at least trying for such archetypes.That probably means a new class, not a 'fixed' fighter. It'd require a lot more than that.  We're not talking the fighter being /just shy/ of being "a martial warrior that is mechanically interesting and complex without relying on {supernatural abilities}."  The fighter is a solid multi-attacking, high-DPR 'striker,' it works fine for that, and it would take more than a new or merely tweaked sub-class to break it out of that function. Only in the advertising-claim sense of 'best.'  You can claim your product is 'best' without being sued for false advertising, if you can demonstrate that none of the available competing products are /better/ than it.  The fighter is moderately tough, and gives consistent, high DPR, with a spike or two between short rests.  Most other classes can match that spike DPR, situationally, and some can rival that consistent high DPR at some levels. Similarly, you can support the fighter's 'best at fighting' claim (that was the goal 5e set itself, not 'best at defeating enemies), if you assume it's 'consistently best at fighting with weapons, without using spells or other special abilities.'  Which makes it a pretty safe title. No. You could give the fighter all the non-combat abilities of the Rogue (just about everything but Sneak Attack), and you wouldn't have a 'broken' class.  Giving the fighter any depth or variety in combat, though, would be problematic, because his DPR is already so high, and so consistent.While there are things 'wrong with the fighter,' they're not things that can be fixed, but they might be addressed with an entirely new class...</blockquote>

Verification