Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6650904" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, and the issue is, to be clear, not that the fighter is in some way inferior, it is that the fighter is in no way unique. There isn't anything that fighters get in terms of an actual capability to do something in the narrative fiction, that every other class cannot possibly do also. A wizard can climb, hide, jump, escape, and even swing a sword. There is in fact not one single general thing that a fighter can do that entirely transcends what a wizard can try to do. He may be poor at some of these things (maybe not too), and he might not be able to try exactly the same mechanical thing in every detail (he can't make multiple attacks, but he can surely swing a sword). Yet, fictionally, the wizard is far beyond the fighter. He can do things that the fighter, assuming he doesn't become an EK, simply cannot even try. MANY of those things, many spells, can allow him without any sort of check to do things a fighter cannot try at all, like fly or walk invisibly through a crowded room. I don't know that there's ultimately a 'fix' for this, except to get some spell casting if you want, but the argument is that at least one edition, 4e, DID allow somewhat more, that its fighters were a bit more 'mythic'. ONE reason for this, baseline performance for highest level 4e PCs was a lot more fantastic. This meant that perhaps the fighter wasn't doing a lot that was super unique, but he was far less outclassed. He was like the Motorcycle Bandit vs the Pixie Summoner instead of BMX Bandit vs Angel Summoner. I thought it worked out a little better overall. That being said, you do have the choice in 5e to be an EK or MC into wizard, or whatever. I do sometimes wish there was some more 'fightery' magic though.</blockquote>

Verification