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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6668626" data-attributes="member: 996">There were no 'DEX fighters' (at least, not officially, some of us wrote variants) prior to 3e, and even those were tenuous.  The problem was that a fighter who wanted to be good at ranged combat needed very good DEX for the 'reaction/attacking bonus,' but /also/ needed very high STR and special ranged weapons made specifically for that STR, to have the damage bonus to keep up with what melee fighters could do. By the same token, high DEX and heavy armor was a desirable combination, since there was no maxDEX to AC cap.  So there were not specialized 'STR' fighters and DEX fighters in classic D&D - you maximized both if you possibly could.Specialization came later in 1e, and in 2e, and at that point, you had double-specialized-dual-wielding fighters dominating in melee, and bow-specialists dominating at range.  Even then, though, they both required both high STR and high DEX for optimal effectiveness.  I think you're double-counting some stuff there.  Multi-attacking gives you high single-target DPR in melee or ranged, so Solo Killing and both kinds of DPR are just the multi-attacking feature (though I'm not disputing it's a mechanically potent, even problematic feature).But, at bottom, you have GWM melee fighters and SS archery fighters as the optimal specializations in 5e.  Except for the dominant melee style being one big weapon instead of two little ones, it's very close to the 2e status-quo.That was the key in 3e, too.  Well, not so much following guidelines, which are iffy in both cases, but varying the campaign.   A DM could impose splotlight balance in 3.x by varying challenges enough.  It wasn't easy, but, in spite of the Cult of RAW, it was possible.  5e makes imposing spotlight balance much easier, since the DM is empowered not just to vary the content of encounters or nature of challenges or length of the day, but to make rulings, turn by turn, to assure that spotlight shines where it needs to. That'd suit me, fine.  Thing is, the D&D fighter loses a lot of effectiveness the moment you take weapons out of the picture.  Niche protection for the Monk, I suppose.  It looked like 5e wasn't going to be quite that bad, but it seems unarmed attacks aren't going to be counting as 'weapons,' afterall.It does seem to be being used differently.  Sometimes, to designate not casting spells or using other supernatural or magical abilities.  Sometimes to mean 'ordinary' and bound by modern perceptions of what is physically possible.  The former is reasonable enough - there are still a few sub-classes that meet that definition.  The latter, in the context of an FRPG, is just absurd. It seems you have each made some claims.  I do not see yours being substantiated.  You can badger Ashkelon for not giving you a specific citation if you like, but it's not like we can't all look up the Song of Roland and see that the crazy stuff that was attributed to him, just for one example from you list.  You can sure pack a lot of logical fallacies into a single statement.  Ashkelon just needs to provide examples of characters from myth/legend who do perform superhuman feats beyond what the fighter can do.  Providing lists of historical persons who aren't reputed to have performed superhuman feats is meaningless.  Furthermore, you list /does/ contain characters from myth who did perform those kinds of feats.  Ashkelon mentioned vertical leaps, for instance, and Cuchulain's "Salmon's Leap" is one of his famous feats.   You've been given multiple examples.  From your own list.  promises, promises.</blockquote>

Verification