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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6507624" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sigh, this is why examples and white room theorising gets so tiresome.Why on earth does your fighter have a 17 AC?  Good grief,  you can do that at 1st level.  Plate is AC 18 before you even start and you probably have that by about 5th level.  AC 20 is not unreasonable for a fighter - Plate and Shield does make a pretty decent fighter.  So, now we have our AC 15 rogue and our AC 20 fighter.  But, again, this is a complete misread on what roles actually mean.  Roles mean "This character will be best suited to doing this", whatever this happens to be.  Is there a doubt that a fighter would be the best suited to holding a doorway?  Sure, the thief or the wizard might do it, but, isn't the fighter the one best suited?  Aren't the fighter abilities the ones that are the best for this particular job - defending a point and holding back the baddies?You want someone to do damage to a lot of targets at once.  Do you bring the rogue or the wizard?  Not that a rogue couldn't set a deadfall trap or a cave in trap.  That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that, by and large, in general, if you want to do damage to a lot of creatures at once, you are generally looking to the wizard and not the thief or the fighter.  Cleric in a pinch, perhaps, but, again, the wizard is the one who's best qualified here.  Thus, controller.You want someone to do lots of damage to one guy and bring the pain?  Who's your go to?  The cleric?  Maybe, but, generally not likely.  The wizard?  Again, possibly, with the right spells, but, often it's an all or nothing kind of deal.  OTOH, an assassin rogue works pretty darn well in that role.  Ranger does darn well as well.  Fighter?  Possibly.  With the right toys anyway.  And, I think Paladin's might qualify here as well.  Strikers.Again, 5e doesn't really have a leader role, since no one can grant extra actions.  Healing's covered, but, meh, that was always a minor element of leaders in my mind.  Actually, bard's might make a decent leader now - at least in the buff/debuff realm.But the idea that the descriptive term of roles doesn't exist or that mechanical advantage is necessary is a "repugnant holdover" is a joke.  If you think that's true, then explain why fighter's got weapon specialisation in 2e.  After all, if all decisions should be situational and tactics are built on the in-game scenario only, then why the MASSIVE upgrade to fighter combat ability going from 1e to 2e?  Note that rangers also got a big bump in 2e as well since they started out with two weapon fighting.  Only paladins didn't get an big offensive bump going from 1e to 2e.  Since there is virtually no difference between 1e and 2e monsters outside of giants and dragons, why did the classes get a huge offensive bump?</blockquote>

Verification