Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6642173" data-attributes="member: 48965">Why not?&nbsp; I mean skills give one the ability to affect non-combat pillars... the higher your bonus is the more likely you are to succeed... thus I'm not following the logic that they aren't support for non-combat pillars.&nbsp; Could you elaborate? Wait what is &quot;fightery&quot;??&nbsp; I would think having a multitude of feats is fightery, thus whatever extra feats are chosen... are &quot;fightery&quot;.&nbsp; I mean I feel like you're really stretching here.&nbsp; So now it's not about whether the class was designed with non-combat capability in mind... it's about whether said non-combat competency feels fightery??&nbsp; I mean what abilities (outside of fighting) would be distinctly fightery? &nbsp;The difference is the fighter gets to pick and play with more toys...I know exactly what you said and I have addressed exactly that point in our discussion... the fighter has access to ways to increase his non-combat abilities, thus I'm not understanding how one could assume the 3 pillars weren't considered in designing the class?&nbsp; Now if he was stuck without the ability to gain spells... pick extra feats outside of combat and/or have enough ability increases to step outside just physical capabilities I would agree with you... but the fighter class was created with all of these ways to gain non-combat competency. I didn't say that, but the fighter is way more than just effective in combat... in fact effective is what all the classes are in combat, at least as far as I've seen...&nbsp; But to address what I actually posted...if you want to be optimized (top tier) in combat you should suffer somewhere else...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 6642173, member: 48965"] Why not? I mean skills give one the ability to affect non-combat pillars... the higher your bonus is the more likely you are to succeed... thus I'm not following the logic that they aren't support for non-combat pillars. Could you elaborate? Wait what is "fightery"?? I would think having a multitude of feats is fightery, thus whatever extra feats are chosen... are "fightery". I mean I feel like you're really stretching here. So now it's not about whether the class was designed with non-combat capability in mind... it's about whether said non-combat competency feels fightery?? I mean what abilities (outside of fighting) would be distinctly fightery? The difference is the fighter gets to pick and play with more toys... I know exactly what you said and I have addressed exactly that point in our discussion... the fighter has access to ways to increase his non-combat abilities, thus I'm not understanding how one could assume the 3 pillars weren't considered in designing the class? Now if he was stuck without the ability to gain spells... pick extra feats outside of combat and/or have enough ability increases to step outside just physical capabilities I would agree with you... but the fighter class was created with all of these ways to gain non-combat competency. I didn't say that, but the fighter is way more than just effective in combat... in fact effective is what all the classes are in combat, at least as far as I've seen... But to address what I actually posted...if you want to be optimized (top tier) in combat you should suffer somewhere else... [/QUOTE]

Verification