Community

Jo_Pistachio wrote:

Fighter+leadership=fighter with a horse.

Paladin+leadership=Paladin with horse + leadership. Preferably for a druid companion that overshadows both the fighter, his mount, the paladin, and his mount. Unless the fighter is also riding a druid, but that would probably get you a penalty.

Not to mention the inherent charisma synergy that a fighter simply can't come even close to.

It's not a question of "better" or "more powerful" but rather a Fighter who likes to focus on mounted combat has a way of getting a mount that's not "frail" as the levels progress.

TheAntiTroll wrote:

As for Fighter usefulness... I can tell you right off one would be completely useless in any campaign I ran.

I thoughed a good quality of DMs was that non of your PCs are useless? If you have a rangers, don't you throw some favorite enemies his way? if you have an fire elementalist, don't you throw some [cold]-subtype creatures their way?

Letting every-one shine once in a while, and thus letting everyone have their fun, isn't that important?

Jo_Pistachio]I don't think you understand what a learning curve is. A learning curve dictates how hard it is to use something set over a course of time. It's usually inverse to a difficulty over time curve.

I thought it was a curve, mapping knowledge of mechanics/class/... onto power.
- Fighter starts low (you require only basic knowledge about the game to make a somewhat effective fighter), while Wizard starts high (you not only need to know the basics, but also how spells work + you need to select your spells + knowledge when to use your spells, ...)
- For high power (at the end of the curve), Fighter is extremly high (you need much knowledge to make an effective fighter) While for wizards it isn't (you need only some knowledge more for your high power wizard)

I don't think you understand what a learning curve is. A learning curve dictates how hard it is to use something set over a course of time. It's usually inverse to a difficulty over time curve.[/quote]
I thought it was a curve, mapping knowledge of mechanics/class/... onto power.
- Fighter starts low (you require only basic knowledge about the game to make a somewhat effective fighter), while Wizard starts high (you not only need to know the basics, but also how spells work + you need to select your spells + knowledge when to use your spells, ...)
- For high power (at the end of the curve), Fighter is extremly high (you need much knowledge to make an effective fighter) While for wizards it isn't (you need only some knowledge more for your high power wizard)

Jo_Pistachio]Wizards do need fixing. And again, why don't you like wizards, and why is my dislike of fighters not valid? They are categorically a weaker class than the others, sans maybe the monk.

hypocritical of me, right? hmmm... guessing it depends on the game style you play. I never had problems when I play fighters (but then again, I'm more knowledgable about combo-ing, splatbooks, ...then my other fellow players). Where I'm sitting the fighter isn't problematic ... but if I would do the same with wizard, I would overshadow all other characters.

My fixes for the game are (quite) simple: PHB+PHB2 for the players (using DMG for magic items, and MM for mounts/familiars/animal compagnions), and forbid the spellcasters to do spellcombo's. other stuff need to go through the DM first ... and for some reason I don't seem to have the trouble that
- the fighter is a waist of space
- the paladin is only no waist of space if he smites
- the barbarian requires pounce to be ef wrote: