is the Fighter Class a supercherie ?

( redo from an old erased topic )

  here's the topic: your character is composed of body points, which are taken off when you suffer critical hits, and you have not much of body points; you can improve your total by proving yourself a true sports champion.

you can use a substitute of body points called hit points whenever you enter combat mode. you can enter combat mode volontarily. combat mode is a strenuous activity, so you cannot normally always stay in combat mode. your AC raises in combat mode, and you gain feats derived from the fighter class as well.


BUT a character taken by surprise under non-combat mode has no defense like those given by combat mode and can be easily defeated. so how can we define combat mode?


it is viewed as a concentrative ability, based on sharpened senses, with a limited duration in rounds like a haste spell (or perhaps constitution rounds), and usable your level times per day, so you won't necessarily enter combat mode in each and every fight; sometimes you let the friends take up the fight.


my main reflexion with the idea of combat mode as a simple spell which empowers you (temporarily) to the class of Fighter is to permit spells of combat for the magician; if we could "recreate" the fighter class under a spell class, that would let us simplify the system enormously!

I feel like there have been better ones ("better") in the 4e homebrew forums over the years.

To quote a post from one of those threads:
Whether intentional or not, the OP is an honest-to-goodness, Lord of Madness ;). Just for kicks, I've saved this (and a few of the OP's other) threads as text files. Should our games ever take us to the Far Realms, they'll be great inspiration. For that, I owe thanks.



Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
As I read it, the OP is talking about making a spell that will give fighter stats to non- combat classes like wizards. Which I don't think is a very good idea from a balance perpective.
 
So...

BADCHIP is an... odd... choice of ability scores that bears no resemblance to D&D, measured on a 10-point scale that also bears no resemblance to D&D. It comes with a handful of very shaky analogies that don't clarify anything, made to a group of skills loosely based on 4th Edition. While it could work in a game, it's incomplete as presented.

WISE/WIME is another set of ability scores that also bears no resemblance to anything in D&D, but at least it kind of makes sense. While it could work in a game, it's incomplete as presented.

The skill system is a set of 15 skills that follow a sort of mathematical symmetry, but don't make any sense.

The multiclass system is horribly complicated way of saying "players get six ability scores". I have no idea how multiclassing fits in to this, except as another group of shaky and confusing analogies.

The current thread kind of describes a system of combat, but it's nothing like D&D. Once again, it could work in a game, but it's incomplete as presented.


I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Did that come out sounding adversarial? I'm terribly sorry; I meant it constructively. Please allow me to rephrase that better.

Many of these ideas could work in a game, but they are incomplete, and the game based on them would not resemble D&D in the slightest. That does not make them bad. I believe the original poster should complete these ideas, and compile them into a full game.

Many of the analogies are confusing. When the original poster does write a game, I request that the analogies be clarified, as what confuses me will probably confuse other potential players.

Again, I apologize for my tone.
OP, is English your first language?
nay, I'm a little frenchie ( so sorry if you have to use archeological translation - lol -  )