Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6642022" data-attributes="member: 48965">Everyone doesn't get bonus feats though... that is specifically a fighter class ability and thus should be included in this discussion.  I'm also leery of the whole "not past 12th level argument" (especially since my group is at 8th level and still going strong).  I asked for a citation or quote to back this up but never received one... do you have some kind of evidence for this?  The other issue is that if this is the case then it also reduces the abilities of all the classes since they too wouldn't receive any abilities above 12th level. IMO, the fact that a singular feat usually grants multiple abilities which can be applied in multiple ways makes this analogy, at least from my perspective, problematic and arguably not accurate at all... Why would it be +1 at lower levels?  You get to raise an attribute by 2 so it would be either +2 to a broad group of skills at lower levels... and +2/+2 to two broad groups or +4 to one broad groups at higher levels (at least according to the way you choose to play the game (not going past 12th level/not choosing non-combat stuff as a priority to combat feats there are of course other options, like +2/+2 or +4 at lower levels for those who want them).  I guess it could be a +1 if the stat is odd but that has nothing to do with levels...  So is the issue that a player gets the flexibility to choose whether he wants to focus on non-combat, combat or balance them out?  If you want to be in the thick of non-combat take the non-combat feats early... if you want a fighter who just "fights" then devote yourself to combat... what I don't get is why the choice is a bad thing...it effectively lets people choose the type of fighter they want... and let's be honest, even without devoting all of his lower feats to combat, the fighter is still going to be a top tier combatant... I don't agree it's the minority, I don't know and I don't think it matters for a general discussion of the fighter's non-combat abilities... since I think players who want their fighter to participate in the social and exploration pillars more than they already can will choose to use their bonus feats to allow them to do that...  This is why I keep bringing up the whole "do all things great" question... the fighter is already heads above the other classes in combat prowess so he doesn't have to devote as much to that area, feat or stat wise to contribute effectively (if he chooses to devote resources to combat then he becomes even better at it but he can easily contribute at a relevant level without devoting all of his feats to the combat pillar).  Those classes with non-combat pillar support don't get that for free... they aren't as competent as the fighter in combat.  I personally feel like if there's any one class that should have the option to be devoted solely to combat it's the fighter... it's what he does... but to claim the fighter doesn't have the option through class features to be competent in the non-combat pillars is just wrong.  You may not like how it's implemented... but that in no way means it isn't there.   He should be in a better place by default than the fighter... especially since the fighter is more competent in combat than he is...</blockquote>

Verification