|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 3:02AM
#81
|
|
|
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts  Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.
Special maneuvers are just standardized rules for how you try and what happens if you succeed. It's no more spell-like than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. Having it on the character sheet is good design because it helps players with poor memories and prevents time-consuming flipping thru books.
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:38AM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
As far as he goes, I think the "simple" fighter needs the following: 1.) 2 different "basic" attacks. One does small damage on a miss, one allows temp DR or a push or something). 2.) the ability to charge. Nobody else can - but the fighter is the best at combat. He can move his speed then use his action to charge. Minimum 10ft move and a basic attack with a Crit range of 19-20. No damage on a miss or anything. -1 AC until next round. 3.) no disadvantage when firing a ranged attack into melee. The fighter is simply better at fighting. He can ignore distractions that others cannot. He can time his shots better. This would make the simple/basic fighter more interesting to me. I'd feel much less gypped.
Hey, you just threw up three off-the-cuff ideas, and came up with a fighter that's a lot better than the "Hurr, I are a sack of HPs dat duz damage!" Fighter +2 Damage Class. Well done.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:50AM
#83
|
|
|
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the cleric
i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 10:35AM
#84
|
|
|
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf through the rule book.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 11:04AM
#85
|
|
|
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf through the rule book.
If this is the case, do you also believe Wizards should be restricted in their spells to only what fits on a character sheet? Or is it okay for them to reference the book for every spell they need to cast, while Fighters need to be limited to what can fit on their sheet?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 10:38AM
#86
|
|
|
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf through the rule book.
If this is the case, do you also believe Wizards should be restricted in their spells to only what fits on a character sheet? Or is it okay for them to reference the book for every spell they need to cast, while Fighters need to be limited to what can fit on their sheet?
Isn't it usually the case that the Wizard's character sheet is their spellbook?
And no, I don't think Fighters need to be limited to their sheet, but I think they should have a foundation to work off of.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 10:47AM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the cleric
i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
Maneuvers and powers are the same thing. It's just changing a word. You could call it fluffy bunny feet, and it is the same concept. Getting technical, though. Martial classes have Exploits in 4e.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 11:35AM
#88
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2005
|
i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
Statements like this give me a headache. After so many years of hearing people say "I didn’t like 4e's power system," it has made me start to wonder if they felt that way because they are actually literalists. They saw a vocabulary word—power—used to describe a combat action with a kicker, and somehow got to “only superheroes have powers, why are there superheroes in D&D?”
It’s like being confused that you took damage on a miss, when they’re specifically called HIT points. Characters didn’t have powers like Superman has powers. It was a catch-all vocabulary word for certain kinds of actions. For some reason, this confused the heck out of a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 11:35AM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2008
|
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the cleric
i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
A maneuver IS a power. With a different name. That's literally what almost every 4E "power" for a fighter was. A simple maneuver that you'd likely see in combat. Same with their stances, which pushed you into a "I am specializing in this maneuver" mode for a while.
Does it really come down to the name? And the fact that all powers are easier to read when they are presented in the same basic manner? Is that really, truly, what all the fuss from the folks who prefer older editions really is?
Even the feats and whatnot that add to basic maneuvers anyone can attempt are really just powers in disguise. When you tack on that extra ability or numerical bonus to a trip, for example, you're just making that maneuver into a more unique power for your character. Being able to present that power as a single, neatly laid out power is much better than trying to refer to a bunch of disparate feats and features when you want to use a special maneuver.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 10, 2012 - 11:42AM
#90
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2005
|
For an attacking spell, it's more than enough. What is a fireball, a big magic missile that strike multiple foes. Wait a minute we also have chain lightning... a magic missile that strike foes who are next to another... And hmmm we also have cone of cold... a magic missile that strikes a strange pattern in front of you...
I can't tell if you're being serious. If you are, then let me ask you:
What is Whirlwind Attack, a big basic attack that strikes multiple foes. Yet fighters don't get that in the core rules because it's too much like a spell. What is Ricochet Shot, a ranged basic attack that strikes foes that are next to one another. Yet fighters don't get that in the core rules because it's too much like a spell. My point is, Wizards are given codified special attacks in the rules where Fighters must ask permission to achieve similar effects.
What is a Basic Attack, but a Magic Missile with no range that you have to roll to hit? Wow, that version of Magic Missle kinda stinks.
|
|
|
