Community

Feb 1, 2013 -- 2:49PM, wrecan wrote:

So what do you do if you have disadvantage in a trained skill?

Remove 1 die. 3d20 => 2d20 with disadvantage. 2d20 => 1d20 with disadvantage.

With advantage 1d20 => 2d20. 2d20 => 3d20. etc.

Feb 1, 2013 -- 3:18PM, Father-Dagon wrote:

From what I've gathered throughout this thread, people would like the fighter to:

- Be the best at combat
- Be able to pick up any weapon/armor and use it effectively
- Be able to contribute meaningfully out of combat
- Have plenty of combat options/maneuvers
- Be balanced with/against caster classes
- Not render rangers, paladins, and other melee-primary classes inferior

Not possible.
It is simply not possible to accomplish all of the above.

Wait, what?  That seems incredibly possible.


EDIT: At worst, "Be the best at combat" might conflict directly with "Not render rangers, paladins, and other melee-primary classes inferior".

Feb 1, 2013 -- 3:28PM, greatfrito wrote:

EDIT: At worst, "Be the best at combat" might conflict directly with "Not render rangers, paladins, and other melee-primary classes inferior".

That's a pretty big "at worst".

People look to past fighters and claim they were "luggage carriers of casters", "Robin to someone else's Batman", and generally lacking in anything that makes them stand out, yet be balanced against other classes (including...or maybe especially...against casters). The reason? There's a few. First, casters were supremely overpowered. Second, the options the fighter picked up were so lackluster and basically demanded to be picked up unless you wanted him even more inferior than he already was. Toughness? Cleave? Two-weapon fighting? What do those do when a single spell can render the fight basically over in short order?

4E gave fighters the best go at it, IMO. Every other edition garners the above claims (whether they are correct or not is another story entirely). People want paladins, rangers, assassins, monks, barbarians, and all of those other melee classes in the game. Most of those classes have a particular shtick that sets them apart from each other. The way the 5E fighter is headed, most of the things that make him good are shared by other classes...thus we're back at square one: his aimless direction. What is the fighter's thing? What does he do that sets him apart? What would make someone look at the fighter and choose him over any other melee class as it stands right now? What about when (in the future) they release the ranger, the paladin, the assassin, the whatever-you-will melee class? I, personally, don't want to see the fighter shoved aside yet again just because they can't figure out how to give him his own thing that he won't have to share with other melee classes. If that's going to be the case, then I'd just as soon WotC drop the class completely. We're in the playtest phase. Right now is where the fighter should be being defined. Right now is where the base chassis of the fighter will decide, later on, whether he still has to carry the casters' luggage again or not. I know they will never drop the fighter from the roster, but if they can't do him well, then it's likely many players will drop him from their rosters.