Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6545014" data-attributes="member: 48965">Emphasis Mine: I think you're wrong... for a player whose concept for his fighter is archer... it is an objectively better class... and for many it wasn't less focused but more versatile since nothing prevented you from choosing to create a meatshield if that's how you wanted to play... of course at that point role is no longer bound to class... But none of his powers did which means he was less effective both damage wise and in versatility.  With the way 4e was designed being restricted in combat to basic attacks was in fact being ineffective... at least compared to everyone else whose using powers.  There is a ton of difference between being able to do "something" vs. being effective.  You seem to be glossing over whether or not these feats or ability to use a weapon in fact made them "effective" or not.You specifically call out 5e so I'm going to again have to disagree.  For the first time in D&D the fighter has the same amount of skills as every class and through his background (and if applicable race) can choose nearly any skill he really wants, even those outside the purview of his class skills...As to his defensive capabilities... have you looked at the battle master?  A battle master fighter can choose the Protection fighting style and the sentinel feat to gain the base capabilities of the defender fighter... from there you structure him around maneuvers that increase his stickiness. How exactly is he unable to fill the "defender of allies" role if built to do it?  A leader would take the Commander's Strike & Rally maneuvers, possibly Distractuing Strike to impose Disadvantage on opponents along with the Inspiring Leader feat The thing that isn't happening is the Fighter class being synonymous with a single role like it was in pre-essentials 4e.I'll just agree to disagree with most of this and accept we probably view 4e differently enough that we'll continuously go back and forth here so it probably isn't constructive for me to address this, that said...This is wrong... the ranger and fighter had different proficiencies, skills, important attributes, etc. so picking a ranger wasn't just picking an archer... and having the ranger as the only competent archer was in fact a restriction.  Exactly...</blockquote>

Verification