NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spinozajack" data-source="post: 6651125" data-attributes="member: 6794198">Skill selection based on character class is built in to every class in 4th edition until themes came in late into the edition, if I remember correctly, but background gives your class like a fighter access to previously rogue-only skills like stealth or thief tool profiency. We were talking about out of combat prowess of the Champion fighter subclass compared to other classes. Being able to access any one skill or tool proficiency that anyone else might be able to get is definitely pertinent to the discussion. A party of 4 in 5e can cover all the bases with the champion being able to make plenty of OOC contribution. I gave at least a dozen examples. If you think proficiencies in 5e don't affect out of combat utility, then I don't know what to say.Regardless, your point is...you have none, I think. You mention inclusiveness, and 5th edition did achieve that. But not at the expense of making the default rules selections maintain a classic D&D feeling, with the most basic or iconic subclass of each class fit squarely with the expectation of the majority. In the case of preferring the 4e quasi-magical, complex, defender role fighter being the default, that was overruled. You can't have two defaults. So they picked one for Basic D&D, the one most people wanted and expected, and made the 4e version have to be customized. You still get to play the type of fighter you want to play (even getting magic if you want it), but you don't get to have the rules validate a minority game design bias and put it on a pedestal. It seems to me like you want the default fighter to be a BM + EK rolled into one. Because you think the champion is boring. In some games, the champion will destroy those two other subclasses once they run out of spell slots or maneuver points. Or on days when there are many combat rounds, basically. Even 4e fighters ran out of dailies after a few combats, and couldn't fly or even pick the stealth skill. So I'm not sure what you're criticizing about 5e now, because it literally does everything the 4e fighter could, except better. It does more damage (top tier striker-level), has amazing durability, more feats which are very strong in this game, incredible nova capability that other classes lust after, and a simple yet powerful default subclass that isn't eclipsed in power by any other class in the game by a substantial amount, even in short bursts. The champion fighter is a strong MC choice, even for a rogue.You would think that a 4e expert such as yourself would realize how good at-will, always on status effects in class features was. Increased crit range was one of the big game-breaking things in the Daggermaster of 4th edition that eventually got nerfed. By level 11 a champion fighter can nova 6-7 attacks with an 18 crit range and with bonus attacks on a crit. 8 attacks in one encounter power! With full strength mod! Not even rangers got that. Remember how they nerfed Blade Cascade down to 5 attacks? And those are ranger dual wielder powers. 5e fighters rule, including the champion. Maybe especially. As soon as you have more than 4 combats a day, the champion pulls ahead of the others in damage. Very flexible, very simple, very powerful, very fun. Killing stuff is fun. If you want magic, play an EK. Or a wizard. Or any one of the other myriad magic-using classes. Or multiclass into one for a level or two. Or take a feat. There are literally tons of ways to add whatever powers you want to a champion. And if you find it boring after a while, I'm pretty sure your DM would allow you to retrain.I think your criticisms are totally off. Not having magic in every class of the game is a feature. We wanted that. You talk about inclusiveness but you don't walk the walk yourself. You seem like you would deny our choice to play a magic-free, simple fighter, despite you having access to any tool or skill a rogue can use, or learn how to cast magic easily with or without multiclassing. In a half-dozen ways. I think it's you who is being exclusive here, actually. You would deny what the majority wants. The majority aren't trying to deny you what you want. But not every class or subclass has to do everything every other class can do equally well. One size does not fit all.</blockquote>

Verification