Community

Feb 7, 2013 -- 8:42PM, rampant wrote:

Some of them yes, lunge for example is never gonna get any better or worse on it's own, but combine lunge with whirlwind and boom You've amped up Whirlwind's versatility quite a bit.

You go from being able to hit any one within 1 square to anyone within 2 squares.

Spring-attack + whirlwind gives you that last surge of movement to get into or out of wherever you need to whirlwind.

Push + whirlwind is almost cool enough to make you think this is still 4e.

Do the maneuvers need tweaking and to scale better in a few cases? do we need more? Oh heck yeah to both. But we don't need god-maneuvers, just mix up the ones we got.

So you accept that 20th level Fighters should be exactly as skilled as 10th level Fighters?

Because, with no new maneuvers AND no new dice to use, this is the case currently.

And who (other than you, as a strawman to attack) suggested "god-maneuvers"?

I just said that there are (and should, in the game be) some things which higher level martial characters can do that lower level ones can't. 

Feb 9, 2013 -- 12:55AM, rampant wrote:

I said we needed more maneuvers, and more dice, I just don't think we need to have Improved lunge, improved spring attack, and improved bull rush be their own maneuvers. I don't think we need special maneuvers for higher levels, that we should make the maneuvers more generally useable and scale better so that higher level fighters will string together super combos.

I think there are probably some things which would be cool and aren't scaled up versions of existing maneuvers.

But you might be right that improved scalability could work.

I'd like to playtest both. 

Feb 9, 2013 -- 3:12AM, CVB wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 11:43PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 12:25AM, CVB wrote:

The issue is that reach weapons don't really work well in D&D, they often give the wielder too good an advantage.  I can hit opponents at twice the distance as they can hit me?  Sign me up.  In real life, it didn't work that way.  And turning the polearm into a double weapon for one on one fighting makes sense, as that's what most ended up doing (mainly the Chinese and Japanese.)

On the other hand, yeah, the feat support absolutely sucks at the moment.

You do realise you are wrong, right?

The advantages of reach, especially when used by a skilled warrior (or in formation) is what kept spears (and even more so, pikes) relevant on the battlefield centuries after the weapons which totally outclass them in D&D appeared. 

Polearms are formation weapons, they have a limited swing range when used in one hand and shield in the other.  There's a reason the Hoplites fought in groups, and had back up blades.  Polearms are too unwieldy on a one on one situation, unless you use it in both hands and as a total weapon, rather than just the pointy end.

You are ignoring literally dozens of examples of skilled users fighting outside of those limited confines from Homer through to the Arthur legends.

And those are EXACTLY the kinds of stories D&D is supposed to recreate.

Polearms are even better in formation, but they are far from useless as individual weapons... otherwise what reason do you have for their extensive use as guard weapons? 

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:31AM, TheOneWhoCallCrow wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 3:19AM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Polearms are even better in formation, but they are far from useless as individual weapons... otherwise what reason do you have for their extensive use as guard weapons? 

I find polearms really good against large creatures. 

Exactly.

It'd be nice to see that reflected in the game.

Historically one of the things which made polearms such a useful weapon was the regularity of mounted opponents.

In D&D the regularity of Large (and larger) monsters (which would be similar to confront to mounted opponents) means that polearms should be a common option for soldiers of all kinds.

It'd be nice to see these (very real) advantages reflected in the game.


...


But this is off topic.

I remain cononvinced that moving to Weapon Dice is a good idea, especially given the negative impact this will have on maneuvers and the necessity to further restrict dice growth to prevent damage inflation.

I continue to insist that Fighters must continue to change and grow after lvl 10.

The foolishness we have now where a lvl 10 Fighter is EXACTLY AS GOOD at their iconic abilities as a lvl 20 Fighter is, quite simply, sad.