Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7097530" data-attributes="member: 2525">Magic items can be anything and you're arguing the players are entirely metagaming. Which is fair given that's your experience, but neither is a knock on how the class is built. But even if that's the case, sword and board is a fine option, and Shield Master and Sentinel are fine feats to go with it. But maybe more importantly this might be a good argument for more feats to choose from.As for cookie-cutter, here comes another Paladin with Aura of Protection. Here comes another raging Barbarian. Here comes another archer Hunter Ranger. All the other fighter-types you mentioned are even more cookie-cutter than a Fighter who at least has 6 good feats to choose from. Why aren't those other fighter-types viewed as cookie cutter as well?&nbsp; My guess is it's because of hold-over prejudices from prior editions regarding what feats &quot;should&quot; be rather than actual lack of versatility with fighters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7097530, member: 2525"] Magic items can be anything and you're arguing the players are entirely metagaming. Which is fair given that's your experience, but neither is a knock on how the class is built. But even if that's the case, sword and board is a fine option, and Shield Master and Sentinel are fine feats to go with it. But maybe more importantly this might be a good argument for more feats to choose from. As for cookie-cutter, here comes another Paladin with Aura of Protection. Here comes another raging Barbarian. Here comes another archer Hunter Ranger. All the other fighter-types you mentioned are even more cookie-cutter than a Fighter who at least has 6 good feats to choose from. Why aren't those other fighter-types viewed as cookie cutter as well? My guess is it's because of hold-over prejudices from prior editions regarding what feats "should" be rather than actual lack of versatility with fighters. [/QUOTE]

Verification