Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5258663" data-attributes="member: 78116">The "classic" fighter (we honestly need better naming conventions here) has considerably better stances, that's kind of my point as if I was a knight I wouldn't be taking knight stances - I would take classic fighter ones. Your logic also doesn't hold up, Hide Armour Expertise wasn't broken on Shamans as an example, but another class the Barbarian broke it entirely. Because one class broke the feat, it was nerfed into oblivion even though other classes found it fine. That easily disproves that just because something is okay in one context, it doesn't mean it will be in another.I've already stated it's only possible, but it's definitely something that is worth considering in the long run in terms of errata/essentials viability. The Knight is a very different class to the original fighter, to me what might be fine in one context could be potentially broken in the other. This is part of my issues with this being "compatible". Just like how Hide Armour Expertise was perfectly fine in one context (shaman) yet absolutely chronically broken in another (Barbarian). So your logic isn't sound. What isn't broken for one class can be broken for another. 4E has a history of this.</blockquote>