Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8305291" data-attributes="member: 87792">The problem is that my answer to whether spellcasters should be as effective as martial characters in combat is dependent on whether we are talking the fighter or the rogue. If we're talking balance across multiple pillars (social, exploration, and combat) then the fighter has gone all-in on the combat pillar, while the rogue should be at least able to play hard in one of the other pillars and probably both. As the fighter has very little expertise in the other pillars they should be better at combat than more flexible characters like either the rogue or any spellcaster.The next problem I have is that fighters aren't real world fighters - they are wielding boffer swords. A relatively low level fighter (or for that matter a rogue) should, on a good hit to heart or head be able to one shot an ogre (59hp). Yes, ogres are big and strong - but they aren't steel and do have anatomy. Meanwhile thanks to hit point mechanics D&D fighters are far less dangerous than trained real world warriors wielding cold steel. And let's not get started on how relatively ineffective mundane armour, especially plate, has been since 3.0. Also as people have mentioned even the level 20 fighter can't match up to real world people physically.And then there's the question "If everyone else is mythological should the high level fighter even exist as a face-tanking archetype?" My conception of a high level fighter is someone like Hercules or Cu-Chulain. Mythological and larger than life. There is space for a super-normal Batman equivalent, but it shouldn't be the class with the second highest hit points in the game. Instead it should be the class that exists by wits, speed, and trying not to be seen - in other words a "mundane" 20th level character should be a rogue and not a fighter.</blockquote>

Verification