Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9334451" data-attributes="member: 6801228">You seriously made a SECOND massive post? Splitting this. May just cut some things. I cannot write a full length novel just replying to you.The problem for some of us (though seemingly not for you) is that it is really hard to find something that full casters are not good at, while martials seem regulated to "hit with club" and "be hit by club" as the things their class is good at. You can build a bard who is an equal to a rogue in just about every way, but you can't build a fighter who can outshine a bard if they are trying.  The road only goes one way.But the goal is NOT to cast a spell. The goal is to have abilities that effect the narrative of the world in a similar manner. Not in all ways, I'm not looking to have fighters throwing around wishes or meteors, but narratively they are limited, and currently the only thing I'm getting from you is "Yes, that is because only spellcasters should have access to that much power, if you want it, you are required to become a spellcaster, or just hope no one else is making an effort" Which... is bad game design.Fighting Style gives a single d6 once per short rest. +3 to one roll is not going to make you good at a pillar of play. Also, most people don't swap subclasses, not even sure why that is in the discussion.So, play the banneret to be a fighter who is bad at fighting, but good at social.... but not as good as bards, rogues, rangers or warlocks.... who also don't have to be bad at fighting... This is a bad argument.From the fighting style? Again, that is a single bardic inspiration die essentially. Do you treat manuevers as at-will abilities instead of a resource?</blockquote>

Verification