A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
[TallFrodo] TASTE MY STEEL
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm getting flashbacks to Kangaxx in Baldur's Gate 2. What do you _mean_ I'm not supposed to fight the optional hidden boss right after completing the tutorial? I don't care if four out of the six members of my party can't even scratch him, I'm assembling and fighting that demilich the first second I can! It's a self-inflicted hell that I put myself through every. Single. Time. Just like fighting the ancient red dragon Firkraag when he's introduced instead of coming back much later as intended. -
This post did not contain any content.[The fighter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQFik9nlBcw)
-
Sadly action surge is once per ahort/long rest until later lvs, when it's twice. Fighter's are so boring in DnD 5e
-
Depends, is the Wizard affected by Mage Armor? Because then you might have a case
-
Sadly action surge is once per ahort/long rest until later lvs, when it's twice. Fighter's are so boring in DnD 5e
-
Sadly action surge is once per ahort/long rest until later lvs, when it's twice. Fighter's are so boring in DnD 5eAnd yet they still have lots of features in their subclasses, work great with quick multiclass options, and can just, ya know, *wield a magic weapon*. My battlemaster fighter had a few levels in Battlesmith artificers and I had sooo many things I could do even though the only spells I really ever cast were Shield and Arcane Weapon. I had my steel defender doing all kinds of fun stuff, and even though being ranged took _some_ flavour out I was still able to be creative. It was also awesome to have such a clean base to build my roleplay on top of and by the end he was the least background-heavy character yet still had tonnes of depth and character. The only “issue” with them is that the burden of creativity lies much more heavily on the player and it’s more difficult to rest on cheap stereotypes. I’m playing a warlock now, _the_ plot class, and I still took it several steps further all on my own _because I can_.
-
And yet they still have lots of features in their subclasses, work great with quick multiclass options, and can just, ya know, *wield a magic weapon*. My battlemaster fighter had a few levels in Battlesmith artificers and I had sooo many things I could do even though the only spells I really ever cast were Shield and Arcane Weapon. I had my steel defender doing all kinds of fun stuff, and even though being ranged took _some_ flavour out I was still able to be creative. It was also awesome to have such a clean base to build my roleplay on top of and by the end he was the least background-heavy character yet still had tonnes of depth and character. The only “issue” with them is that the burden of creativity lies much more heavily on the player and it’s more difficult to rest on cheap stereotypes. I’m playing a warlock now, _the_ plot class, and I still took it several steps further all on my own _because I can_."FIghter isn't bad, just need to get level in another class!", which is like, really hard specially for newer players. Pathfinder does fighters waaaay better without needing to get creative with building your character.
-
"FIghter isn't bad, just need to get level in another class!", which is like, really hard specially for newer players. Pathfinder does fighters waaaay better without needing to get creative with building your character.This is still miles ahead of Fighter in 3.5 which simply didn't exist. It was two levels you took to get extra feats for your REAL class and no one ever took more.
-
In 2e Pathfinder, yes. In 1e...no because 1e is just D&D 3.5 with a paintjob and there Fighter SUUUUCKED.
-
This post did not contain any content.*pours alchemist's fire onto swords* khaby_lame_shrugging.jpg
-
In 2e Pathfinder, yes. In 1e...no because 1e is just D&D 3.5 with a paintjob and there Fighter SUUUUCKED.
-
"FIghter isn't bad, just need to get level in another class!", which is like, really hard specially for newer players. Pathfinder does fighters waaaay better without needing to get creative with building your character.I’m aware of what I said, but the other point I made is that fighters are _not_ the boring easy class everyone makes them out to be. They are very open-ended and that can be a lot for people but it’s not a sign that they’re bad. They also have the echo knight and eldritch knight subclasses if you want a little help/inspiration/spice built into the class itself. I have an echo knight minotaur I played for a bit who was great fun to play in combat. If we’re talking about complexity being the issue then you can back right the heck up with that “just play Pathfinder” nonsense. I really want to try PF2e, actually, but to act like it’s simpler than a 5e multiclass is something you must surely know is not going to fly. I made a PF1e barbarian once and the amount of choices I had to make as an experience 5e player was within my skill level _but_ for your hypothetical new player it would be far more daunting a task. Also “without needing to get creative” is such a tell. It’s really not that complicated, and it’s not 5e’s fault that someone might need a stricter framework. You’re not a worse person for it, necessarily, but the whining about it sure isn’t a good look.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
In 2e Pathfinder, yes. In 1e...no because 1e is just D&D 3.5 with a paintjob and there Fighter SUUUUCKED.
-
I’m aware of what I said, but the other point I made is that fighters are _not_ the boring easy class everyone makes them out to be. They are very open-ended and that can be a lot for people but it’s not a sign that they’re bad. They also have the echo knight and eldritch knight subclasses if you want a little help/inspiration/spice built into the class itself. I have an echo knight minotaur I played for a bit who was great fun to play in combat. If we’re talking about complexity being the issue then you can back right the heck up with that “just play Pathfinder” nonsense. I really want to try PF2e, actually, but to act like it’s simpler than a 5e multiclass is something you must surely know is not going to fly. I made a PF1e barbarian once and the amount of choices I had to make as an experience 5e player was within my skill level _but_ for your hypothetical new player it would be far more daunting a task. Also “without needing to get creative” is such a tell. It’s really not that complicated, and it’s not 5e’s fault that someone might need a stricter framework. You’re not a worse person for it, necessarily, but the whining about it sure isn’t a good look.Any class can be open ended by multiclassing, that doesn't make it good. Eldritch Knight is a worse hexblade, not even a half caster like a paladin since it can't even get 5th level spells. Echo Knight is in an extra book made by someone not in Wizard's and it shows, because it actually has flavor. PF2 is completely different to PF1, PF1 is closer to 5e than it is to PF2. Even multiclassing in PF2 is ridiculously easy and fun, without having to worry about accidentally making your character completely useless in battle. PF2 is stricter? Since when? It has more options that 5e ever did, it is just better. Go learn PF2 instead of judging it from your experience with PF1 before preaching 5e like a fanboy/girl.
