2012-09-28, 02:22 PM
Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?
If Master At Arms is what you think a fighter should be, than why should it be called Fighter instead of Master At Arms, since the second of those is what it actually is? And what happens when someone does want to build a specialist with a particular weapon, is that just not possible? Or do we need another class for that? What about when they want their fighter to be built around battlefield cunning, instead, or pure mental focus? There's a reason people are typically happy with barbarian as a separate class — rage is a big concept, a major stylistic choice. It deserves individual attention, and so do other concepts.
Originally Posted by psiclone57
The issue is that the styles of play, imagery, and mechanical concepts people envision for a "fighter" vary to a degree that makes the class doomed to fail. This goes beyond just "how do I shot sword" vs. "how do I shot axe," into questions of exactly what you want the class to be doing from round to round. And if the answer is "auto-attacking," then the fighter will still suck and still be boring.
Last edited by gkathellar; 2012-09-28 at 02:24 PM.