Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MuhVerisimilitude" data-source="post: 9139129" data-attributes="member: 7042567">This is why I am saying that the argument used in the &quot;fallacy&quot; is wrong. When people say &quot;nobody would play the fighter&quot; as illustrated in the example they are assuming that people make their choice of class based entirely on the power of the class, but this is known to not be the case. The druid is one of the least popular classes and it has always been extremely strong, and in 3.5 the druid was absurdly overpowered.Heck, I like fighters conceptually and I've played 2 fighters in 5E.I don't understand what your point is with that comment. But if we disregard theming then it's fairly trivial for a wizard to get all the armour choices and weapon choices by taking one level of fighter and then going bladesinger and using the shield spell. This gives them a more reliable AC and extra attacks too.Yeah sure you sacrifice one level of casting, but consider the reverse. Does a fighter get anything of equal impact by going 1 level wizard and 19 levels fighter?That assumption is wrong, because I dislike the warlord. As a concept it is completely uninteresting to me. I wouldn't object to it existing in 5E, but it's not something I'd want to play. It was just a convenient example since that was the context from where I got the example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MuhVerisimilitude, post: 9139129, member: 7042567"] This is why I am saying that the argument used in the "fallacy" is wrong. When people say "nobody would play the fighter" as illustrated in the example they are assuming that people make their choice of class based entirely on the power of the class, but this is known to not be the case. The druid is one of the least popular classes and it has always been extremely strong, and in 3.5 the druid was absurdly overpowered. Heck, I like fighters conceptually and I've played 2 fighters in 5E. I don't understand what your point is with that comment. But if we disregard theming then it's fairly trivial for a wizard to get all the armour choices and weapon choices by taking one level of fighter and then going bladesinger and using the shield spell. This gives them a more reliable AC and extra attacks too. Yeah sure you sacrifice one level of casting, but consider the reverse. Does a fighter get anything of equal impact by going 1 level wizard and 19 levels fighter? That assumption is wrong, because I dislike the warlord. As a concept it is completely uninteresting to me. I wouldn't object to it existing in 5E, but it's not something I'd want to play. It was just a convenient example since that was the context from where I got the example. [/QUOTE]

Verification