NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8067044" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Something [USER=7025860]@Kozos[/USER] said got me thinking:The problem with the fighter is it is too generic. Think of all the roles we (sort of) want it to fill... and how other classes can do the same thing, if not better and/or sooner. We want a tactical fighter, a warlord fighter, a weapon master fighter, and so on. That is a lot of ground for one class to cover. Can it be done? Sure. But... Fighters should be the best at ONE thing: COMBAT. You can cry out "What about exploration!? What about social!?" but that simply isn't what the class is designed for. Give them some goodies of course, but the main issue still remains: fighters really aren't the best at fighting. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Other high-level warrior types (i.e. non-casters) should have to struggle and pull out all the stops to even have a chance to defeat an equal level fighter.A barbarian should need to rage.A paladin should need to smite.A ranger should need to... well, whatever they can do!Etc.A while ago we had a thread about the best 20th level class build, a la battle royal, and who would win... If we remove the casters and focused just on the warrior-types, the Fighter SHOULD reign supreme IMO.The sad fact is, I simply think they won't. I mean, if you put a 20th level Fighter up against 20th level build of the other warrior classes, how often do you think the fighter would win?</blockquote>

Verification