Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Sauurman Sep 15, 2014 22:18:55	The balance may not be perfect (it never will be) but 5th ed has done a MUCH better job of balancing the front line fighter vs. magic user disparity in comparision to third ed.  I love how the fight can heal himself like a boss with second wind and from the get go do way more then he could in the first few levels of 3rd ed.     Reading the monk class was a sheer joy in comparison to the monk of third ed.     Great job Wizards!
#2 Diffan Sep 16, 2014 7:07:55	Sauurman wrote:
(Reply to #2) Ashrym	Diffan wrote:
#4 Jay_Ibero_911 Sep 16, 2014 10:59:25	I think the point is that non-combat abilities should't be competing with combat abilities. The fighter that invests significantly in wis or cha is giving up precious points in str/dex/con needed to be effective. A feat spent on non-combat is a lost ABI/combat feat needed to stay above the curve. Backgrounds are great because the choice is only between different non-combat benefits, but for other non-combat benefits the cost is too high.
#5 Kalani Sep 16, 2014 11:18:45	Diffan wrote:
#6 Lawolf Sep 16, 2014 11:30:06	Kalani wrote:
#7 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 11:31:18	Lawolf wrote:
#8 Kalani Sep 16, 2014 11:44:01	Compared to 4E, yes the 5E martial classes lack versatility in options. Compared to BECMI, 1E, 2E, Players Option, Dragonlance SAGA, 3E, and 3.5 however - the classes are fairly robust, and offer a fair degree of versatility. Not to the same degree as the spellcasting classes (as each spell is itself a versatile option), but moreso than in most of the previous editions - 4E excluded.   I would go as far as to say the 5E martial classes are more versatile than their 4E Essentials counterparts.   The 3.5 Fighter is extremely fun to build, with a great deal of versatility in build options - but lacks versatility at the game table, or maintains in-game versatility at the expense of specialization. The 3.5 mechanics encourage fighters to specialize in order to remain relevant, else they fall behind the power curve.    As you can tell, I have played every edition of the game to date, with the exception of ODnD (which preceeds BECMI and 1E).
(Reply to #4) Ashrym	Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
#10 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 11:46:48	Kalani wrote:
#11 Lawolf Sep 16, 2014 12:02:06	Kalani wrote:
#12 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 12:00:35	Diffan wrote:
#13 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 12:31:05	Sauurman wrote:
#14 Kalani Sep 16, 2014 12:44:37	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#15 Saelorn Sep 16, 2014 12:47:37	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#16 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 13:15:00	Kalani wrote:
#17 Kalani Sep 16, 2014 13:24:18	Technically, we should not be discussing PF when comparing the editions, for the same reasons we should not be discussing any other 3rd party 3.5 clone (Sword & Sorcery, Castles & Crusades, 13th Age, Arcana Unearthed, etc). Pathfinder may be the most popular clone, but it is just as relevant as all the other clones. In fact, if we are going to open the discussion to TPPs, we should really be discussing the 2-3 clones that Monte Cook wrote, given the fact that he was part of the original 3.X design team.
#18 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 14:01:36	Kalani wrote:
#19 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 15:06:05	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #5) Diffan	Kalani wrote:
#21 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 15:10:53	Diffan wrote:
#22 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 15:12:50	Diffan wrote:
#23 Saelorn Sep 16, 2014 15:35:51	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#24 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 15:48:20	Saelorn wrote:
#25 Saelorn Sep 16, 2014 16:08:42	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#26 Tony_Vargas Sep 16, 2014 16:25:38	Saelorn wrote:
#27 Lawolf Sep 16, 2014 16:29:04	Nothing like having your high level fighter taken out of a whole combat due to a first level spell with a save DC too high to make (Tasha's hideous laughter).
#28 Zardnaar Sep 16, 2014 16:32:26	Tony_Vargas wrote:
(Reply to #21) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#30 Brock_Landers Sep 16, 2014 23:25:30	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #29) Uchawi	Diffan wrote:
#32 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 3:20:33	Uchawi wrote:
#33 Uchawi Sep 17, 2014 3:29:10	Likewise.
#34 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 3:35:47	Uchawi wrote:
#35 Mistwell Sep 17, 2014 6:40:10	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #30) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #11) CCS	Lawolf wrote:
#38 Diffan Sep 17, 2014 7:59:13	Brock_Landers wrote:
#39 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 8:06:51	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #39) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#41 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 8:34:16	CCS wrote:
#42 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 8:29:24	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #42) Diffan	Brock_Landers wrote:
#44 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 8:42:39	Diffan wrote:
(Reply to #41) 2Chlorobutanal	Lawolf wrote:
#46 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 9:13:40	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #46) 2Chlorobutanal	... and that mundane action can be modelled perfectly with the existing 5e fighter, through attack and damage rolls.  (Minus the "troll" part, which doesn't seem to actually appear in the text, since they regenerate and are a classic foil, along with hydras, to a solo fighter without torches or acid).
#48 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 9:26:52	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#49 Lord_Phobetor Sep 17, 2014 10:41:55	I've been playing since Basic Set, and yeah...I gotta agree with the folks who are saying that the 4E Fighter is getting no love in this thread. As far as options go, a 4th Ed PH1 Fighter has it all over the 5th Ed counterpart. Even going with the same basic build, a 4E fighter had tons of options. Say, for example, you're building a human great weapon fighter. Do go with Dex as the secondary stat? If so, do you go with greatsword or spear abilities? If you go with Con instead, do you go with axe or maul? I know that 5E is all "oooooh shiny," but don't let "new-stalgia" blind you to what has come before
#50 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 10:48:04	Lawolf wrote:
#51 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 11:01:39	Saelorn wrote:
#52 Tony_Vargas Sep 17, 2014 11:36:01	CCS wrote:
#53 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 11:26:10	Lawolf wrote:
#54 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 11:29:21	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#55 Tony_Vargas Sep 17, 2014 11:35:02	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#56 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 11:40:16	Saelorn wrote:
#57 Ivid_IV Sep 17, 2014 11:41:33	I'm enjoying 5th edition.
#58 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 11:43:23	Lawolf wrote:
#59 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 11:48:20	Tony_Vargas wrote:
#60 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 11:51:14	Lawolf wrote:
#61 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 11:59:29	Saelorn wrote:
#62 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 12:05:52	Lawolf wrote:
#63 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 12:07:43	Lawolf wrote:
#64 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 12:11:08	Saelorn wrote:
#65 Mistwell Sep 17, 2014 12:15:31	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #63) Diffan	Saelorn wrote:
#67 Tony_Vargas Sep 17, 2014 12:13:49	Brock_Landers wrote:
#68 Lawolf Sep 17, 2014 12:16:06	Diffan wrote:
#69 Brock_Landers Sep 17, 2014 12:17:15	Lawolf wrote:
#70 Tony_Vargas Sep 17, 2014 12:21:31	Lawolf wrote:
#71 Saelorn Sep 17, 2014 12:30:36	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #56) Tydanosaurus	Lawolf wrote:
(Reply to #41) arnwolf666	Lawolf wrote:
#74 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 17:00:59	Non magical fighter in 3.5 with an adamantine sword was quite good at hewing rock. Or breaking castle walls. Power atack with a adamntine weapon= lolz.
#75 Gnarl Sep 17, 2014 20:58:17	Brock_Landers wrote:
#76 Zardnaar Sep 17, 2014 21:07:26	Gnarl wrote:
#77 Brock_Landers Sep 18, 2014 5:36:22	Gnarl wrote: