Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 4293026" data-attributes="member: 12332">I think it is because, previously, the Fighter was SEEN as "The Guy Who Fights ... With Weapons".Even if the most EFFECTIVE tactics were, usually, melee builds of various types, it remained that there were feats and such to support the Fighter as the guy as what fights with weapons ... all of them.Now the "Fighter" is actually the "Melee Tanky Guy".  He CAN'T use bows really effectively, there's nothing in his powers for it and the role defined for him fundamentally means he's unsuited to it.Before you COULD ... now you CAN'T ... but the name on the class is the same.  The Fighter, now, is probably closer to the Knight of 3.5.  He's a melee combatant with battlefield-control powers directed toward encouraging enemies to focus attacks on him.Which is cool, really, but it's not the Fighter of editions of yore.  He was a general-purpose guy-with-weapons combatant.  He had no defined role, you defined your role through the choices you made.  The Fighter of Tomorrow is defined by his role before you get there.  Choosing a fighter defines what you are going to do with him ... Defend ... In Melee.  To be honest, I don't really think of most of the classes by their class names.  I think "Defender, Martial" or "Striker, Martial"I actually find it unfortunate that there are two martial strikers.  From the 4E sessions I've run, the plethora of Strikers in the PHB and the different class names has proven to be painful for the players, since each time we've played the party has doubled-up on Strikers and left one of the other roles empty, even if everybody is playing a different class.I honestly hope that d20 Modern v2.0 goes with four general classes:  Striker, Defender, Controller, Leader.  --fje</blockquote>

Verification