Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7439181" data-attributes="member: 42582">Here is the OP on that particular point:The OP is not dismissing the increase to AC from using a shield. The claim is that using a shield leads to a drop in DPR disproportionate to the benefit gained. (Maybe that claim is wrong. Maybe the Shield Mastery feat makes up for it. But that is a completely different argument from the claim that the OP is dismissive of increases to AC.)Here is a description of the main contribution of clerics to the game, from Gygax's PHB (pp 18, 20):Clerics principally function as supportive, although they have some offensive spell power and are able to use armor and weapons effectively. . . . The cleric serves to fortify, protect, and revitalize. The cleric also has a limited number of attack spells . . . In addition, the cleric has the ability to wear armor, carry effective weaponry, and engage in hand-to-hand (melee) combat with a reasonable chance of success. Another important attribute of the cleric is the ability to turn away (or actually command into service) the undead and less powerful demons and devils.This is a statement of class function. It presupposes that support, by way of fortification, protection, and revitalisation; that attacking (both by spell and weapon); and that turning away supernatural evils; are all meaningful contributions to the game. But it does not assert, imply, or presuppose, that these functions are king. The same book describes other classes which make different contributions.4e D&D also talks about class functions. For instance, the description of a ranger (PHB, p 103) says that "You concentrate on either ranged attacks or two-weapon melee fighting to deal a lot of damage to one enemy at a time. Your attacks rely on speed and mobility, since you prefer to use hit-and-run tactics whenever possible."This doesn't assume that damage dealing, or speed and mobility, are king. The book describes other classes whose contributions to play differ from the ranger's.Similarly, to state that - in 5e - the main contribution a fighter makes to play is damage, is not to assume, presuppose, imply or assert that DPR is king. It's to make a statement about a particular class.It's not an assumption, it's an assertion in the OP. I think the OP has in mind a fighter. The build you describe includes a significant rogue component. Is it a bad thing that it's hard to build a damage-effective knife-throwing fighter? I don't have a view on this. (4e makes it hard to do build a damage-effective ranged-weapon fighter, and a lot of people complained about that. My view was that maybe they should build rangers instead. Some found that a satisfactory answer; others didn't.)</blockquote>

Verification