Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 6642221" data-attributes="member: 20998">I guess we’re even then, since I feel like you’re stretching too <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=":)" /> (to be candid with you, your argument style is very frustrating because I feel like you assume I’m talking BS before trying to understand something – with that in mind, please realize I have no ulterior motives or hidden agendas here, I’m just trying to call it like I see it)I feel inventing a word “fighter-y” did the job, but for examples… wild shape is “druid-y”, favored enemy is “ranger-y”, etc.With that sorted, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect non-combat abilities flavored for each class to exist, especially since the precedent is clearly set with other classes. Feats are not “fighter-y”, getting extra feats is fightery. If I pick up linguist does the feat suddenly get instilled with fighter flavor? What if a druid picks up the feat, does it suddenly become druid themed? Of course not. And before it’s said, yes you can weave a tale to make it flavored for a fighter, but that’s what you do for any other class. But beyond all of this, if you fundamentally disagree that throwing a +2 bonus at someone over 20 levels or letting them pick up a couple extra feats from the generic pool is lame support of non-combat pillars, I really can’t take this conversation any further with you.  Your prior comments implied you didn’t get my stance on this, so it seemed worth reiterating. I don’t however, know how to re-explain my position that the fighter feels like the tenet of the 3 pillars was not embraced during its design. I don’t know how boost your stats, pick up some feats, or be another class (wizard) doesn’t sound like “afterthought” to you. You said: “He should be in a better place by default than the fighter... especially since the fighter is more competent in combat than he is...”I said: “So if you are effective in combat you must be ineffective in the other pillars?”Unless we’re picking nits with word choice, I’m not exactly clear how I misinterpreted your original statement.Personally I disagree with a need for combat and non-combat to be balanced like ends of a teeter-totter. That path leads to bored players when you’re playing in the pillars in which they have nothing to do. It’s one thing when it’s a result of a conscious choice on the part of the player. It’s another when it’s because the system gives you limited and uninspired options (or impressive jumping skills).</blockquote>

Verification