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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7255753" data-attributes="member: 22779">I gotta got with Tony V on this one. [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]' example is exactly what I mean when I say the fighter isn't bringing anything to the table that another class isn't.  Sure, the fighter can swim that extra distance.Once.Meanwhile, the rogue is doing it every round, a higher level ranger is doing it every round, a monk has the bonus base speed to make up for it (and can spend Ki for extra speed FAR more often than a fighter can surge), a barbarian has bonus speed and advantage on swim checks if he wants.  So, what is the fighter doing that other classes can't?  And can't do far more often than the fighter can?  IOW, what advantage to the group is there to have a fighter and not another class?  The thing is, most of these other classes are certainly competitive in combat, they are contributing quite acceptably in combat.  No one, I think, is arguing that a rogue, ranger, monk or barbarian is lacking in combat.  They might not be the top of the list, but, they're not far behind either.  And, while holding their own in combat, they are contributing far more often and far more effectively out of combat than the fighter can.That's my basic beef in a nutshell.  The fighter is fine as far as it goes.  IMO, though, it could be a lot better without breaking the game.  Giving fighters a bit more oomph out of combat isn't going to radically alter game balance.  It's not like anyone is saying they should get massive benefits.  Just a bit more.  Make having a fighter at the table actually matter that it's a FIGHTER at the table.  Every other class has a niche that says, quite clearly and hopefully in every session, "Yes, I am playing a ____."  With fighters, nothing the fighter does makes a strong statement at the table.</blockquote>

Verification