Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9170669" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I can attest to this, I saw many people play Fighters in 3e (or at least dip Fighter) because of &quot;all the Feats!&quot;- despite the fact that most of the Feats were garbage until you met strict prerequisites.&nbsp; Heck, I played several myself, since I would often find some niche Feat that I really wanted to build around, lol, especially in Complete Adventurer and the PHB2.I did always want to try a Tome of Battle class, but I never got the chance before nobody wanted to play 3.5 anymore in my area.Heck, I even played a Fighter in PF1e for much the same reason, those crazy combat Feats, lol.&nbsp; And as for AD&amp;D, sure, Fighter was a strong character choice, you had great survivability, and while there were better classes for doing what Fighter did, they usually had crazy ability score prerequisites or roleplay restrictions that kept Fighter from being truly overshadowed.I saw a lot of people trying out Fighter in 4e, without realizing it wasn't actually the &quot;beat up people with big weapons&quot; class...and some kept trying to optimize their melee damage even when they did figure it out, even when the Barbarian was available (heck, I saw a few people play Warlords with the same mindset!).The class fantasy remains strong, even though I don't really believe there's a lot about the class that's special in 5e.&nbsp; At this point, I don't have any real desire to play another Fighter (at least, not a single-classed one), but maybe if a really neat subclass is printed I might change my mind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9170669, member: 6877472"] I can attest to this, I saw many people play Fighters in 3e (or at least dip Fighter) because of "all the Feats!"- despite the fact that most of the Feats were garbage until you met strict prerequisites. Heck, I played several myself, since I would often find some niche Feat that I really wanted to build around, lol, especially in Complete Adventurer and the PHB2. I did always want to try a Tome of Battle class, but I never got the chance before nobody wanted to play 3.5 anymore in my area. Heck, I even played a Fighter in PF1e for much the same reason, those crazy combat Feats, lol. And as for AD&D, sure, Fighter was a strong character choice, you had great survivability, and while there were better classes for doing what Fighter did, they usually had crazy ability score prerequisites or roleplay restrictions that kept Fighter from being truly overshadowed. I saw a lot of people trying out Fighter in 4e, without realizing it wasn't actually the "beat up people with big weapons" class...and some kept trying to optimize their melee damage even when they did figure it out, even when the Barbarian was available (heck, I saw a few people play Warlords with the same mindset!). The class fantasy remains strong, even though I don't really believe there's a lot about the class that's special in 5e. At this point, I don't have any real desire to play another Fighter (at least, not a single-classed one), but maybe if a really neat subclass is printed I might change my mind. [/QUOTE]

Verification