|
12 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 3:28PM
#261
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
The whole meat-shield role for fighters is a relic of computer MMO games and I've always hated it.
Made up.. rather by Arneson and Gygax before MMOs existed... you know admittedly there were very few active abilities of hte character that allowed them to be effective at it.
And being innefective at what was originally described as a major element of there job was carried through for many years.
The term might be the same but what they meant aren't. Having a role in that since you are the toughest you help to protect you allies but you mainly kick ass is totally different from the mmo mentality of your primary role is to take hits while doing damage is a scondary concern. 4e had a more balanced look at it than MMOs but it definitely shifted from the 1-2e era where you were a primary ass kicker who helped protect weaker allies.
As I'm currently playing a rogue with 4 Strength, I try to start all combats by making sure the barbarian in our group is between me and the enemy. 
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 11:03AM
#262
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2012
|
One argument I saw a lot in this thread was saying that the problem was only because the DM was meta-gaming.
I have to ask, so what? For many DM's and players, combat is all about stratagy and tactics. The thrill comes from everyone using the best strategy, not about considering what might be the best RP.
Part of the problem stems from monsters not having an 'AI'. It is up entirely to the DM to decide how a monster will act in combat. This was something I loved in 4e, the MM said exactly what a monster would do during battle.
Another part of the problem is that a melee DPS character with poor mobility is fundementally flawed. Anyone with 2 wits about them will just avoid them. Making Fighters sticky, even if they aren't designed to be a tank, still fits with the theme of the character.
You're playing a slayer, so that means you want to slay things. Great, now if only you could do more than swing once at an enemy that runs past you. Even if your goal is not to protect others, but to just to kill as many things as possible, it would still be in your best interest if you could force your enemies to stay within melee range of your attacks.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 29, 2012 - 11:05PM
#263
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2012
|
That's what it all comes back to though. The GM can make or break a game.
I try to make it a case of "If there's a leader it's a coordinated assault, else I roll the dice to see who which creature is going to attack".
If a creature gets attacked it targets that creature. Damage takes precedence over shot at and missed.
Leader will focus on a single target. (Likely wizard. :P ) Will order the attack. Enemy obey. 1 or 2 may move off to intercept other targets of opportunity.
However, you have to spice it up, or else the players get used to that style. If that happens, all that you'll see happening is the fighter hanging back near the wizard. Spring the enemy, and then attack of opportunity when entering threaten square. Withheld attack for next creature. So on so forth.
AD
Are you playtesting? That means playing by the rules as given by WoTC. If you are house-ruling, then perhaps the rule needs fixing. Tell someone. I am.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 29, 2012 - 11:21PM
#264
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 30, 2012 - 12:02AM
#265
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2012
|
OOOhh. I'll test that rule tonight...
I'm GMing it..
I'll report back on how it goes.
AD
Are you playtesting? That means playing by the rules as given by WoTC. If you are house-ruling, then perhaps the rule needs fixing. Tell someone. I am.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 30, 2012 - 12:57AM
#266
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/2... I think we may have our answer.
That actually sounds pretty cool.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jul 30, 2012 - 6:56PM
#267
|
|
|
I agree -- i'm pretty excited by the concept. I played a 3.0 fighter for awhile, but gave up because there just wasn't anything interesting going on -- I never seemed to have any interesting combat choices. I excitedly played 4e, since giving every class exciting choices every turn seemed like a great design goal. And, i love 4e, but I like what I've heard/seen about combats being faster and themes making character creation easier. But, it seemed like giving up "interesting characters" in combats was too much of a loss, and I didn't see myself playing 5e long term. But, if they can make this work, then the only class they need to work on giving interesting choices every turn is the thief.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 31, 2012 - 3:29PM
#268
|
|
|
wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/2... I think we may have our answer.
This feels like a great idea. I woudl love to see it in detail. But for now, I like it quite a bit.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 12:16PM
#269
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2012
|
As long as one of the combat options is to stop enemies from moving past me, this is a great sounding idea.
|
|
|
