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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Muh" data-source="post: 9190815" data-attributes="member: 7042567">It has nothing to do with not liking fighters. We already know that fighters are conceptually popular, but we cannot say that that is because the fighter is a very well designed class or because there is something else with the class that makes it popular.We know for example that the fighter has been popular in every edition of D&D which seems to indicate that it is the general concept of the class that is popular, rather than the implementation.D&D is locked into a vision of simple martials and complex casters which screws over people who want to play simple casters (Harry Potter is a fairly popular franchise I've heard) or complex martials.Because there are multiple design concepts that are less functional in D&D than in other systems and people want them to be functional.D&D affords casters an absurd growth in competence, which is not afforded to martials. Martials are mostly allowed to get better only at hitting things while casters are allowed to be better at magic, which means they grow better at anything you can imagine.Having casters being strong isn't necessarily a problem in itself. The problem is the difference in competence between casters and martials meaning that the design of the system prevents several character concepts from existing. Which character concepts, you ask? Any concept with a highly competent and flexible martial character who the wizard's equal.You're probably playing low-level games.Btw the only fighters I've seen played in 5e has been played by myself.</blockquote>

Verification