Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="satori01" data-source="post: 3191457" data-attributes="member: 7859">I find Nail's example of an Improved Unarmed wielding Warblade, being on par with a Fighter to be a proof of concept.  I like the fact, that with Maneuvers, a subpar archetype in D&D, (the Pugulist), is made effective.I am going to go out on a limb here and say the Martial Adept classes are what the warrior type classes should be.  Feats like Improved Trip, Sunder etc could be made into Maneuvers, letting Feats fullfill other roles than adding combat options.Maneuvers can also model things like Divine Might, better than Feats I think.  It is much easier to retro con, and allow someone to swap out a Maneuver, (similiar to a spell), than it is to have someone redo their feat choices.Moreover, it removes the Fighter from being dependent on their equipment and their comrades to provide them with the means to do their job at high levels.  Take AOW, [spoiler]the final battle against Kyuss, w/out Boots of Flying, or a Fly spell, How does a Fighter get up there?  If Kyuss moves around, how does the Fighter deal his full attack damage.[/spoiler]The TOB classes are certainly more versatile, than a Fighter, because they attempt to address a structrual flaw endemic to the Fighter.I find it interesting that the Star Wars Saga system is doing an overhaul to the Soldier class.  Pretty much shows me, the Fighter needs a redesign.</blockquote>