|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:04AM
#51
|
|
|
I must be slipping I thought he meant rip out, not R. I. P.
Well, my ability to judge tone and stuff on the netz has always been suspect.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:12AM
#52
|
|
|
Let's keep in mind that Class is not the only defining feature of your character.
It is totally appropriate to me to say the fighter is best at fighting. I don't think that class needs to incorporate any other design goals.
That character, however, will be picking a theme and background or feats an skills. These will flesh out the social/exploration options (if you want).
I see plenty of room for a dungeon-crawling fighter that disables traps or a socialite duelist. But as a class alone, the fighter can be best at fighting without too many problems. Parity is not necessarily total equality.
My hope is that parity is maintained. And so far this seems to be ok.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:49AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Let's keep in mind that Class is not the only defining feature of your character. It is totally appropriate to me to say the fighter is best at fighting. I don't think that class needs to incorporate any other design goals. That character, however, will be picking a theme and background or feats an skills. These will flesh out the social/exploration options (if you want). I see plenty of room for a dungeon-crawling fighter that disables traps or a socialite duelist. But as a class alone, the fighter can be best at fighting without too many problems. Parity is not necessarily total equality. My hope is that parity is maintained. And so far this seems to be ok.
Yet again welcome to everything I have been saying for the past month or two. Although people really don't want to accept that their noble fencer, or battlescarred veteran, will be defined by more than one character option. I'm not sure why though.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:57AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Glad to hear more on the deployment of the Open Playtest.
The Fighter Design Goals sounds good to me.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 8:36AM
#55
|
|
|
My guess is that we'll see an option for a defender fighter with marks and control abilities that can lock down at least a few combatants every round, and we'll also see an option for a striker that survives by being tougher than his foe. Either way, you have someone who is "good at fighting" and doesn't play like a ranger or rogue, who should be more focused on mobility than defense. I just hope we don't see a big focus on essentials-style builds that do the same thing every fight. If we see another slayer, it's cool - hopefully we'll also have a more varied and challenging striker build on top of that.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:03AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Roland slew or gravely injured four hundred Saracens in a single battle.
Asuming that Roland has a reach of 1 then he can only kill 8 enemies per round so it will take at least 50 rounds to kill the Saracens. On the other hand the party wizard will probably kill most of the Saracens within round 10, and therefore the fighter will only get a small percentage of the kills.
But that is fine as long as the fighter is effective against larger targets. I wonder if what happens if the party fights a dragon. Should the fighter deal as much damage as the wizard?
BTW: I am trying to read between the lines if AEDU is in or out, but I cannot guess.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:04AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I just hope we don't see a big focus on essentials-style builds that do the same thing every fight.
Essentials, and pretty much every other D&D iteration. But, hopefully, they'll give at least a few options for those of us who don't want to "I hit it with my sword (and that's it)"+ 3-5 other actions for the entirety of the character's lifespan.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
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)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:17AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I just hope we don't see a big focus on essentials-style builds that do the same thing every fight.
Essentials, and pretty much every other D&D iteration. But, hopefully, they'll give at least a few options for those of us who don't want to "I hit it with my sword (and that's it)"+ 3-5 other actions for the entirety of the character's lifespan.
I think that should be an option but not the only option. We've seen there are people wanting most of the variations.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:34AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
"A High-Level Fighter and a High-Level Wizard Are Equal""Even if a wizard unleashes every spell at his or her disposal at a fighter, the fighter absorbs the punishment, throws off the effects, and keeps on fighting."Ok... am I the only one confused by this? If the first statement is true how is the second statement true? Is this what the three pillars will be? So if you are thinking of playing a fighter you have to sit out exploration and interaction, if you are a rogue then good luck in combat? If so that isn't balance, that is selective nerfing to cut classes out of the spotlight for parts of the game rather than actually give valid options to player characters. I'm still looking forward to the playtest, but with a decreasing amount of anticipation. Then again... it could just be poorly phrased and what he meant to say was that if a wizard gets all his spells off the fighter will go down but if the fighter can muscle his way through the wizard will go down. IDK. I may be misinterpreting what 'equal' means.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:36AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2011
|
1) playtest release: a limited release, as expected from a game that's not done.
2) fighter: ugh.
"The fighter can fight!"
"... But what else?"
"What do you mean?"
"What else can he do?"
"It's in his name! Fighter. Fight. Ter. It's latin: best at fighting."
"No it's not... whatever. What else can he do?"
"Use ALL the WEAPONS!"
"..."
it took 6 points to say "Thog hits stuff good" and little else. to say that the figher would be good at fighting, would hopefully be a given, but this lack of "... and see this other cool stuff he can do!" doesn't lessen my fears of the Return of the Quadratic Wizard from Beyond the Gravetm . it shows a fundamental lack of understanding that the Quadratic Wizard wasn't Qudratic due to damage output, but how he could exponentially handle a larger and larger amount of situations by himself since every other non-caster had the non-combat effectiveness of a lobotomized bear with chainsaws for hands.
sure, you can throw the fighter, barbarian, paladin and whatnot at a combat and expect them to come out victorious, but their ability to navigate situations that aren't "swordable" was extremely limited without the help of magic items that replicated a wizard's innate abilities.
if the design goals are to make the fighter fight, great. but it doesn't look to be a class that'll grab my attention.
|
|
|
