|
7 months ago ::
Oct 22, 2012 - 8:57AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Jab is also an attack, which means you can use Deadly Strike to increase its damage.
That said, sacrificing damage for defense is entirely a good idea. If +4 is too much or not is a balance tuning problem, not a design problem. Furthermore, monster attacks are pretty much broken in this iteration anyway - very few comparisons made using them are going to be very useful.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 22, 2012 - 10:23AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2012
|
Jab is also an attack, which means you can use Deadly Strike to increase its damage.
That said, sacrificing damage for defense is entirely a good idea. If +4 is too much or not is a balance tuning problem, not a design problem. Furthermore, monster attacks are pretty much broken in this iteration anyway - very few comparisons made using them are going to be very useful.
Good point regarding balance vs. design. But, in terms of design, I'd like to point out that this Fighter class mechanic (Jab/Snap Shot) is the only one (so far) to allow a player the ability to attack while taking a full-defense action.
However, I can also see how the +4 AC adjustment might mean the difference between life and death for classes that don't generally have a high AC (i.e. Wizards), so the Dodge "game balance" issue changes in relation to the class that is performing it. Gaining a +4 bonus to AC might mean the difference between life & death for a wizard surrounded by enemies, but I don't see how giving a Fighter in heavy armor (& no Dex bonus) the ability to add an additional +4 to his/her AC through use of Dodging makes any sense.
Personally, I don't see a problem with giving a AC bonus to players (even to those in light, maybe even med armor) if they feel the need to improve their chances of not being hit, but the overall combiniation of having one class with the ability to still deal damage while greatly decreasing their chance to be hit seems like an exploit of the system IMO.
Maybe the problem could be "fixed" by ruling some type of dodge disadvantage to players in heavy armor, but that might create the same problem as in the last beta test where lightly armored individuals had better AC values than those in heavy armor.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 22, 2012 - 10:31AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
"something really cool" and "exploit" are often interchangeable terms.
There's a bunch of people who would consider spells to be exploits.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 22, 2012 - 6:19PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
The way Jab is phrased, I don't think they intended stacking Deadly Strike on top of it. It's certainly legal as written, though.
Interesting note: with this strategy, your weapon die is irrelevant. It's better for finesse weapon-users than for heavy weapon-users, but it might interact nicely with unarmed combat, depending on feat support and whatnot.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 22, 2012 - 10:24PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Good catch. This strategy can quickly become overpower. But think in the flavor of Dodge (When you choose this action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks..) this means PC can not do attacks, grab itens, climb a wall or whatever that is not avoiding attacks.
It occurs to me that I want defenses like dodging to act in concert with movement especially for those most addroit at them.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 22, 2012 - 11:52PM
#16
|
|
|
Good catch. This strategy can quickly become overpower. But think in the flavor of Dodge (When you choose this action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks..) this means PC can not do attacks, grab itens, climb a wall or whatever that is not avoiding attacks.
It occurs to me that I want defenses like dodging to act in concert with movement especially for those most addroit at them.
That would make for a cool feet. When you use the dodge meneuver, you may move up to 10 feat (or so).
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 12:00AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Good catch. This strategy can quickly become overpower. But think in the flavor of Dodge (When you choose this action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks..) this means PC can not do attacks, grab itens, climb a wall or whatever that is not avoiding attacks.
It occurs to me that I want defenses like dodging to act in concert with movement especially for those most addroit at them.
That would make for a cool feet. When you use the dodge meneuver, you may move up to 10 feat (or so).
Nods not sure I wouldnt mind nicely integrated form. Or I was considering whether making an evade as a form of parry which included movement.
|
|
|
