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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6829258" data-attributes="member: 6804148">Bloody 9 hells! I had to unvote 2 times, before i could makeup my mind on this one. At first i was all like the classical things, extra attacks, armor proficiency...... but then as i read the comments it all began to change. Even more so as i ran simulations in my head. Armor? Will it's nice..... but at least one other class has it. Weapons? Even more classes have them. So the only thing other classes don't have is the extra attacks. But does it mean? Do extra attacks make fighters good at fighting? And why? What makes extra attacks good, when compared to let's say ... spell slots? And it is around this that i think a case can be made for fighters being best at fighting. But for this to work, i bit of a narrow and arguable definition of fighting must be made. So what do we do in DnD? We explore, we interact, we fight, we REST, we have our downtime...... so if we take fight, and isolate it, and then we do some of it, then some more of it..... and extend to even more then that...... every class in DnD is at some extent dependent on some resource to last through repeated fighting. The fighter (its basic concept at least) seams to be the least dependent on resource though. Those extra attacks will be with you, no matter how many encounters you've had in a row, no matter now many criticals you've made, no matter how many times you hit or missed a target..... as long as your fighter is still standing, you can still hit more often then anyone, and you are as efficient in those hits at the end of the 10th encounter, as you were at the start of the 1st. The best way to get a feel of this is to simulate large scale battles (think of historical battles, many on many soldiers that fight for hours, often for days without rest or respite). If by fighting we mean war making, the act of fighting and NOTHING else, then yey, i say the fighter with its extra attacks is the only class that remains viable the more of it (fighting) it does. One other resource that never runs dry is the extra ASI's. Or the feats you can get for them. These can give the class the extra survivability it needs (when compared by say a barbarian, though still not quite up there), or the extra damage (to offset the ranger and paladin advantages a bit), or even just plain flexibility of the rogues. For the third one i had to go on a whim, and what seams to be thread consensus....... this one is resource dependent and i would rate it third, even if when utilized it really does "spike" the fighter's capability. That is of course action surge...... but it's a bit unfair to include it..... cause if we allow for short rests, then the battle master's maneuvers are every bit as useful....Now, i understand that this is DnD and we are not going to get engaged and prolonged slug fests (at least no DM worth his/her weight in water would allow his party to die off, just because they ran out of resources after 3-9 encounters), but if our fighters are the archetype soldier, then yeah...... soldiering is the best thing they do, out of all the classes. So.... maybe we should use the term soldiering instead of fighting?</blockquote>

Verification