Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6642390" data-attributes="member: 48965"><p>If I automatically assumed you were talking BS I wouldn't engage with you. That said, I am honestly looking to be convinced, especially since my play experience over 8 levels doesn't support your conclusion, that the fighter is woefully inadequate in the other 2 pillars. I've offered up builds and details on how the fighter's in my experience have stayed relevant in the non-combat pillars across 8 levels... Perhaps this will change as we play at higher levels but then I've also been told most people don't play beyond 12... </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem is classes like ranger and druid are auto-associated by consensus with things like nature, survival, animals, etc. A fighter on the other hand is either associated with fighting or there isn't a real consensus...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not sorted, because you still haven't told me what fightery implies... A Paladin is a martial-esque character that has strong traditional flavor outside of "fighting", a rogue is another martial character that has strong traditional flavor outside of combat... by default the fighter is supposed to be a more generic and generalized warrior, his flavor is a master of combat... the minute you give him specifically flavored non-combat abilities you take that general nature and by implication flexibility away. </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>I guess it can't go further... because I have run and played in games with fighters in them and they weren't lame outside of combat.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It sounds like they are keeping the more general nature of the fighter and allowing you to pick what he is outside of combat... as opposed to pigeonholing him into a particular sub-archetype. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ineffective has a different meaning than less effective...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>IME if a player in 5e literally has nothing to do in the non-combat pillars regardless of his class choice, it's because of a conscious choice on the part of the player.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 6642390, member: 48965"] If I automatically assumed you were talking BS I wouldn't engage with you. That said, I am honestly looking to be convinced, especially since my play experience over 8 levels doesn't support your conclusion, that the fighter is woefully inadequate in the other 2 pillars. I've offered up builds and details on how the fighter's in my experience have stayed relevant in the non-combat pillars across 8 levels... Perhaps this will change as we play at higher levels but then I've also been told most people don't play beyond 12... The problem is classes like ranger and druid are auto-associated by consensus with things like nature, survival, animals, etc. A fighter on the other hand is either associated with fighting or there isn't a real consensus... It's not sorted, because you still haven't told me what fightery implies... A Paladin is a martial-esque character that has strong traditional flavor outside of "fighting", a rogue is another martial character that has strong traditional flavor outside of combat... by default the fighter is supposed to be a more generic and generalized warrior, his flavor is a master of combat... the minute you give him specifically flavored non-combat abilities you take that general nature and by implication flexibility away. I guess it can't go further... because I have run and played in games with fighters in them and they weren't lame outside of combat. It sounds like they are keeping the more general nature of the fighter and allowing you to pick what he is outside of combat... as opposed to pigeonholing him into a particular sub-archetype. Ineffective has a different meaning than less effective... IME if a player in 5e literally has nothing to do in the non-combat pillars regardless of his class choice, it's because of a conscious choice on the part of the player. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top