Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6716799" data-attributes="member: 996">Sadly it fails at that. It's nothing new.&nbsp; The 2e fighter got talked up, but the double-specialized archer or TWFer dominated, anything else seemed like a waste of time unless it was salvaged by some powerful magic item.&nbsp; The 3e fighter was supposed to be a natural 'party leader,' but had nothing to back it up - you could do all kinds of wonderful build-to-concept stuff with it, but most just weren't viable alongside CoDzilla.&nbsp; The 4e fighter was locked into a primary &amp; secondary role that precluded it so much as being a good archer, however good it may have been at it's assigned roles.&nbsp; While each of those fighters was limited, each also did stuff really well.&nbsp; The 5e fighter does DPR really well, that's a terribly appropriate thing for a fighter to be good at, and neatly fills the shoes of the 2e fighter.&nbsp; Job well done.&nbsp; For the some of the many (many!) things the 3.x fighter could do (or be a build component of), and the role the 4e fighter covered, and for what the 4e Ranger and Warlord did well, other classes will probably be needed.&nbsp; Well, maybe not the Ranger so much.&nbsp; 3.5 Scout, though.The Fighter's done a great job of being the 2e Fighter, which was a strong expression of the class, so that's enough for one intentionally-simple Standard Game class.&nbsp; &nbsp;And when will that character shine?&nbsp; When he novas with Action Surge and all his CS dice to do a lot of damage.&nbsp; You can put a little artificial flavor and color on a beatstick, but it's still a beatstick.&nbsp; You can use a beatstick for lots of things that you could use any old stick for, but it's still a beatstick. OK, I've used up my quota of b-------ks for the thread.&nbsp; I'm going to grab a <s>beat-</s> sharp stick and go dig up another metaphor...&nbsp;That was a solid argument against the Thief when it appeared in Greyhawk.&nbsp; Since then, we've had a /lot/ of classes.&nbsp; Not that it's wrong.&nbsp; The game could just be Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User and Backgrounds &amp; Multi-classing &amp; Feats to taste, to kinda-sorta do just about any concept.&nbsp; But it's not.&nbsp;&nbsp; In contrast to the 5e fighter's ability at anything other than it's DPR core competency, the 5e Rogue can be&nbsp; really good at picking locks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6716799, member: 996"] Sadly it fails at that. It's nothing new. The 2e fighter got talked up, but the double-specialized archer or TWFer dominated, anything else seemed like a waste of time unless it was salvaged by some powerful magic item. The 3e fighter was supposed to be a natural 'party leader,' but had nothing to back it up - you could do all kinds of wonderful build-to-concept stuff with it, but most just weren't viable alongside CoDzilla. The 4e fighter was locked into a primary & secondary role that precluded it so much as being a good archer, however good it may have been at it's assigned roles. While each of those fighters was limited, each also did stuff really well. The 5e fighter does DPR really well, that's a terribly appropriate thing for a fighter to be good at, and neatly fills the shoes of the 2e fighter. Job well done. For the some of the many (many!) things the 3.x fighter could do (or be a build component of), and the role the 4e fighter covered, and for what the 4e Ranger and Warlord did well, other classes will probably be needed. Well, maybe not the Ranger so much. 3.5 Scout, though. The Fighter's done a great job of being the 2e Fighter, which was a strong expression of the class, so that's enough for one intentionally-simple Standard Game class. And when will that character shine? When he novas with Action Surge and all his CS dice to do a lot of damage. You can put a little artificial flavor and color on a beatstick, but it's still a beatstick. You can use a beatstick for lots of things that you could use any old stick for, but it's still a beatstick. OK, I've used up my quota of b-------ks for the thread. I'm going to grab a [s]beat-[/s] sharp stick and go dig up another metaphor... That was a solid argument against the Thief when it appeared in Greyhawk. Since then, we've had a /lot/ of classes. Not that it's wrong. The game could just be Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User and Backgrounds & Multi-classing & Feats to taste, to kinda-sorta do just about any concept. But it's not. In contrast to the 5e fighter's ability at anything other than it's DPR core competency, the 5e Rogue can be [i]really[/i] good at picking locks. [/QUOTE]

Verification