Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5866438" data-attributes="member: 17106">That's a false comparison. A fighter is not without skills, and the issue of what a fighter should be able to do in a sneak attack situation is being well discussed elsewhere. Comparing magical classes directly to nomagical classes is likewise inappropriate. There is no logical reason for a fighter to have spells or any abilities that are equivalent in scope or power, and in fact, the suggestion of such is completely antithetical to the concept of magic. Clerics have been made too tough and to fighter-y, it's true, but that doesn't mean the fighter needs fixing, it means the cleric does.The 3e fighter is quite balanced until high levels without needing to invent any extraneous mechanics. Plenty of people chose to play them, certainly more than monks, barbarians, rangers, and paladins, and probably more than any other one class. I'm not sure why a unique mechanical ability is necessary to define a class. The other nonmagical classes shouldn't have completely exclusive abilities either, perhaps with a few esoteric exceptions.There's a lot of room for improvement in the combat rules (maneuvers, stances, reactions, health, damage, crits, etc.), which the fighter should be better at using than anyone else. The mistake, however, would be to tie specific combat abilities strongly to a specific class, which makes for bloated class descriptions and an overly complex game, as well as crippling limitations when other martial characters want to do something that isn't their &quot;shtik&quot;. It also doesn't make much sense. What exactly is preventing a non-fighter from doing one of these putative special fighter abilities? With magic you can justify that because it's magic, but for anything else that's sketchy at best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5866438, member: 17106"] That's a false comparison. A fighter is not without skills, and the issue of what a fighter should be able to do in a sneak attack situation is being well discussed elsewhere. Comparing magical classes directly to nomagical classes is likewise inappropriate. There is no logical reason for a fighter to have spells or any abilities that are equivalent in scope or power, and in fact, the suggestion of such is completely antithetical to the concept of magic. Clerics have been made too tough and to fighter-y, it's true, but that doesn't mean the fighter needs fixing, it means the cleric does. The 3e fighter is quite balanced until high levels without needing to invent any extraneous mechanics. Plenty of people chose to play them, certainly more than monks, barbarians, rangers, and paladins, and probably more than any other one class. I'm not sure why a unique mechanical ability is necessary to define a class. The other nonmagical classes shouldn't have completely exclusive abilities either, perhaps with a few esoteric exceptions. There's a lot of room for improvement in the combat rules (maneuvers, stances, reactions, health, damage, crits, etc.), which the fighter should be better at using than anyone else. The mistake, however, would be to tie specific combat abilities strongly to a specific class, which makes for bloated class descriptions and an overly complex game, as well as crippling limitations when other martial characters want to do something that isn't their "shtik". It also doesn't make much sense. What exactly is preventing a non-fighter from doing one of these putative special fighter abilities? With magic you can justify that because it's magic, but for anything else that's sketchy at best. [/QUOTE]

Verification