Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5866385" data-attributes="member: 1879">Exactly! Just like the Rogue and Cleric only without the skills, sneak attack and mastery of magic!Wait, what?If the Fighter doesn't have some kind of unique shtick I'm not sure why it should exist as a class. The Barbarian is just like a fighter with with less armour and more meat, but he gets rage.The Ranger is just like a fighter only he likes camping more and he gets skills and maybe spells and maybe a fluffy dire bunny friend.The Paladin is just like a fighter only god likes him better than you and he's extra shiny with a talking pony, an aura that keeps away evil, healing hands and holy smitiness. Or lazers, depending on edition.Look the fighter needs something or there is literally no reason in the game for one to exist. A fighter with no unique ability is the guy with no friends who didn't merit the extra training or love to learn the spells of a ranger or Paladin or blade singer, or spell sword, the discipline of the monk, the rage of the barbarian, the skill of the rogue or cavalier, the cerbral fortitude of the psy warrior, etc. etc. etc.You know what we call that guy? We call him an NPC. In 3e he was a warrior, if he was lucky. Every starting class from earlier editions will be in 5e. That means Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Warlords and Monks at the very least will represent alternate froms of ass-kickery available as PC classes. With the possible exception of the ranger who tends to be subject to a lot of inter-edition morphing every one of those classes has iconic abilities to bring to the table. What does the fighter bring to the table that make him the equal of that crowd? Why would I choose to play one? How is he balanced against rage, or spells or the quivering palm?</blockquote>

Verification