Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7140091" data-attributes="member: 996">They did try to hide it as best they could. ;P&nbsp;Meh, most 4e utility powers were still oriented more towards combat, anyway - a missed opportunity, really.&nbsp;I did that in 3.x, too.&nbsp; The optimization challenge of taking a tier-5 class and bringing it up to snuff can be a rewarding one.Besides, even the crunchy among us may /also/ like to play a certain concept, and optimize within that.&nbsp; :shrug:&nbsp;Well, feats also increase complexity and, like MCing, open up 3e-style 'builds,' which you may not want to deal with, and there are some very attractive combat feats that one might worry would crowd out the non-combat or make the fighter OP in combat.&nbsp; &nbsp;Feats are a less specific solution to the problem of &quot;5e doesn't feel enough like 3e to me...&quot;&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Fighters not having much out-of-combat utility is a little more on the order of the problem &quot;5e feels too much like D&amp;D&quot; (because, seriously, fighters have always been that way, and I mean always, 'always,' not just always-except-for-4e, 'always' like most perennial D&amp;Disms).&nbsp; Which is a more problematic sort of problem.Even so, you /could/, say, lift specific feats and make them into class features of the fighter, perhaps replacing those two extra ASIs.&nbsp;You don't have to worry so much about intra-party balance?(Also, I doubt that's definitively the best party:&nbsp; I'm sure there are arguments for weighting it more towards Wizards, including a Warlock, having two or more Clerics with different Domains, even throwing in a Paladin, perhaps...)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7140091, member: 996"] They did try to hide it as best they could. ;P Meh, most 4e utility powers were still oriented more towards combat, anyway - a missed opportunity, really. I did that in 3.x, too. The optimization challenge of taking a tier-5 class and bringing it up to snuff can be a rewarding one. Besides, even the crunchy among us may /also/ like to play a certain concept, and optimize within that. :shrug: Well, feats also increase complexity and, like MCing, open up 3e-style 'builds,' which you may not want to deal with, and there are some very attractive combat feats that one might worry would crowd out the non-combat or make the fighter OP in combat. Feats are a less specific solution to the problem of "5e doesn't feel enough like 3e to me..." ;) Fighters not having much out-of-combat utility is a little more on the order of the problem "5e feels too much like D&D" (because, seriously, fighters have always been that way, and I mean [i]always[/i], 'always,' not just always-except-for-4e, 'always' like most perennial D&Disms). Which is a more problematic sort of problem. Even so, you /could/, say, lift specific feats and make them into class features of the fighter, perhaps replacing those two extra ASIs. You don't have to worry so much about intra-party balance? (Also, I doubt that's definitively the best party: I'm sure there are arguments for weighting it more towards Wizards, including a Warlock, having two or more Clerics with different Domains, even throwing in a Paladin, perhaps...) [/QUOTE]

Verification