Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6640803" data-attributes="member: 6790260">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=48965" target="_blank">Imaro</a>, I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion any further--if you're going to continually ascribe bad-faith arguments to me, question whether I've even read the text, and strawman my argument as a quest for Fighters being the best at everything, I have nothing more to say to you on the subject.More or less I was focusing on what Saelorn mentioned--Fighters are no longer shafted compared to everyone else for skills. 3e feats were laughably small bonuses, though, so I don't really think much of how "customizable" they were. 5e feats are certainly better, I just don't think they're better enough--by a substantial margin. Spells are massively more powerful than feats, and always have been (barring 4e, where "spells"-as-such, in the strictest 1/2/3/5e sense, didn't exist.)I do agree that 5e Fighters don't have a choice about whether they can put out high damage. I just also wish they didn't have to opt into non-combat stuff, when *nobody* else has to opt into it to nearly the same degree (while still, as I've said numerous times, achieving equal, or only slightly less, damage in combat).Maybe I'm giving Backgrounds too little respect. I think they're..."garbage" is too strong a word, but I really think people make them out to be something AMAAAAAZING when I think they're almost inconsequential. Tiny benefits that are so heavily DM dependent you're basically begging the DM to design things in such a way that they'll matter--that's how they've always read to me. Less a matter of "DM discretion" and more a matter of "We have no idea how helpful these should be...eh, whatever, offload that to the DM, it's their job, right?"A different way of looking at it: I think it's cool that everyone gets stuff from Backgrounds and other "universal" features. I do notthink it is cool to have one class, and ONLY one class, fundamentally depend on that (or aping spells when the fundamental archetype doesn't include spells*) for its non-combat mechanics. I believe that, no matter what options the table turns on or off, and within a broad range of individual-table preferences, EVERY class should bring its own flavorful, unique, and helpful-in-multiple-circumstances non-combat features. No one should have to "opt into" being able to participate in explicitly-recognized, intentionally-designed, fundamentally important arenas of play, based on the archetype (hybrid or otherwise) that they've chosen to play. Perhaps--and I say this with GREAT reluctance because I know how abusable it can be--they might be able to opt outof such things, but they should never *have* to explicitly choose to get into them. That way leads to traps, and to players being understandably and legitimately upset because they didn't know they had to pay admission to join their friends when <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> hits the fan.*Since the "archetype" thing was questioned earlier: No, I don't think the Eldritch Knight is a capital-F Fighter (Whose Archetype Is Martial Skill). I think it's a hybrid archetype character. It samples the Fighter archetype, but it also samples a fundamentally distinct archetype (Wizard). 5e allows for a spectrum between the pure Fighter archetype (Champion, Battlemaster) and the pure caster archetype (any Wizard subclass); some of these are full classes (Sorcerer, kinda-sorta Monk), most are subclasses (Blade Pact, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, College of Valor). Being a spectrum rather than a pair of binary states, these options sample the two archetypes to varying degrees; since some of them are (by analogy) mods to an engine, rather than a replacement engine, there's necessarily heavier sampling of one archetype over another.Is that (the bolded bit) actually true? I find that incredibly difficult to believe. I mean, I can cognitively understand how it would be possible, but it seems crazy to me that "have the background and decent stat" is enough to effectively guarantee success.</blockquote>

Verification