Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6668341" data-attributes="member: 22779">Actually, there is one thing that the heroes on this list (or at least a lot of them) have in common that fighter's as written don't get.&nbsp; They are all leaders of men.&nbsp; Virtually all of these heroes are either kings or generals or some sort of leader.In 1e, this was shown by fighters getting the best and largest contingent of followers.&nbsp; A 9th level fighter with a keep got something slightly over a hundred loyal soldiers.&nbsp; A nice start to being &quot;leader of men&quot;.A fighter only gets Intimidate as a social skill and gains no knowledge skills.&nbsp; Fighters make very poor leaders of men.&nbsp; It's pretty bad, IMO, when Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan is better modelled with a bard or a rogue.&nbsp; Would Jason actually even be a fighter?&nbsp; Arthur was the leader of leaders, the king that unifies Britain.&nbsp; Fighters get absolutely nothing from their class which would allow them to do this.&nbsp; This is the problem that people are talking about Sacrosanct.&nbsp; Yes, you can gain persuasion from your background, true, but, that has nothing to do with being a fighter.&nbsp; I could be a wizard and be just as persuasive and a better leader of men than your fighter because I have access to knowledge skills which makes me a far better tactician than a fighter could be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6668341, member: 22779"] Actually, there is one thing that the heroes on this list (or at least a lot of them) have in common that fighter's as written don't get. They are all leaders of men. Virtually all of these heroes are either kings or generals or some sort of leader. In 1e, this was shown by fighters getting the best and largest contingent of followers. A 9th level fighter with a keep got something slightly over a hundred loyal soldiers. A nice start to being "leader of men". A fighter only gets Intimidate as a social skill and gains no knowledge skills. Fighters make very poor leaders of men. It's pretty bad, IMO, when Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan is better modelled with a bard or a rogue. Would Jason actually even [i]be[/i] a fighter? Arthur was the leader of leaders, the king that unifies Britain. Fighters get absolutely nothing from their class which would allow them to do this. This is the problem that people are talking about Sacrosanct. Yes, you can gain persuasion from your background, true, but, that has nothing to do with being a fighter. I could be a wizard and be just as persuasive and a better leader of men than your fighter because I have access to knowledge skills which makes me a far better tactician than a fighter could be. [/QUOTE]

Verification