Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6828284" data-attributes="member: 2067">The big point is that "best at fighting" is an ambiguous term that could apply to any class under the right lens. It's like asking what makes a^2 + b^2 = c^2 the most beautiful theorm or asking what makes Coyote the best trickster god. There's no actual answer, just a bunch of opinions that don't talk to each other much because they don't actually agree on what "best at fighting" means.This seems really squishy. How do you know that for a fact? Do you know that this stated goal in an article (giving you the benefit of the doubt there) was also the goal for the final class? Do you know how the numbers were calculated? Were the pillars balanced against each other like that? I mean, in the PHB, all classes seem to fire at least potentially, at least a bit, on all pillars. The Fighter we got clearly has benefits outside of combat, which makes them less combat-focused than a sorcerer or wizard with combat-only magic, forex. If we use that as a guideline, and presume the pillars are balanced in ratio against each other, then the fighter should suck more at combat than a blasty sorcerer. How do you define "good at combat," and what classes are, by that definition, "good at combat?" Do they also get things that are not combat-related? Would that maybe indicate that there's not an explore/fight/talk ratio in the final class design goals?</blockquote>