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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7253426" data-attributes="member: 6785785">No...in a game that didn’t allow Feats, the Fighter still gets more ASIs so he can devote some of them to “non-essential” stats like CHA. And if the other classes also don’t have Feats, then the risk of the Fighter falling behind when it comes to combat is almost nil. Exactly. This edition more than any other except possibly 4th, allows for multiple classes to fill a necessary role. Healing is not limited to the Cleric, skills are not limited to the Rogue...and so on. Each class has strengths and can excel in certain areas.The Fighter excels in Strength. It’s not the only class to do so, but if the party can’t think of some uses outside of combat for a big strong guy, then they aren’t thinking too hard, or the DM isn’t challenging them in that area. But every class, no matter how good they are at a specific non-combat task, can be replaced with another. So I don’t really see the criticism.What the Fighter offers is a bit of versatility in Feat selection or Stat increases to help with non-combat encounters. Sure, if the party has a Bard who’s maxed out CHA and is built for Persuasion based encounters, then maybe it would be foolish for the Fighter to try and keep up with such am expert. But maybe the party doesn’t have a Rogue...so taking Dungeon Delver really helps. He can do that without really affecting his combat output. I can understand the criticism of the class at its most basic, but I just don’t think it really holds up under scrutiny.</blockquote>

Verification