sandraudiga69 Arc User

Comments

• Agreed, it's already there and despite my wishing to build my own fighter from the ground up I will happily be playing both to 60 :)

  in Wonder why Great Weapon Fighter isn't just a Barbarian Comment by sandraudiga69 February 2013
• I think what he meant to name the topic is "Well met, now ask me anything unrelated to the game!". Hey, we know he likes toast ;) In all seriousness though, I think he can only answer questions that the answers to have already been released. We all know a lot of people don't really look for the answers to their questions…

  in Well met, now ask me anything! Comment by sandraudiga69 February 2013
• 1. In my post I never mentioned Barbarian, perhaps you meant that for someone else? I fully agree naming a fighter barbarian would be a mistake as they are quite different. 2. The naming of builds in 4e rulebooks was fairly lame as well, but it more acceptable due to it being a general description of the build rather than…

  in Wonder why Great Weapon Fighter isn't just a Barbarian Comment by sandraudiga69 February 2013
• To be honest, I would have preferred simply fighter and allowing you to create your own build like the pnp. In terms of names Great Weapon Fighter and Guardian Fighter are a bit lame in the naming department. No, I take that back, extremely lame in the naming department. Why not simply call them Fighter and Guardian?

  in Wonder why Great Weapon Fighter isn't just a Barbarian Comment by sandraudiga69 February 2013