|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 8:38AM
#2241
|
|
|
then dont play fighters if you dont like them. 
some people like them fine jsut the way they are.... :P
Or change the class to make it better. Yeah, you forgot that option. Some people seem to know the game's ins and outs and see flaws with some classes.
I'm glad they're changing them. If you don't like it, don't buy the book. Kinda like if you don't like playing a fighter in 3.5, don't play it -- using your words, of course.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 8:41AM
#2242
|
|
|
[url=http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9238/dc1td.jpg]None of those are a market target for D&D4. And the 2 customers that play 2e in your shop, arent either.
LOL
Anyone still playing 2e need to have their head examined. I guess if they want to live in the past, that's their right. How pathetic for them.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 9:37AM
#2243
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2006
|
This is a better, more interesting system and I am all for it.
Sweet, can I see your copy of the book? I have seen nothing that gives anything conclusive. Also, what is interesting to one isn't necessarily interesting to all. The same applies to "better".
I'm using all the 4E concepts because they rock. Any DM should exalt the death of CR. We don't have to rest after every 3 encounters when we have a caster in tow? Great! Classes get more diversity? Fantastic! Race actually affect gameplay? Awesome! Fighters have more options than "I run up and swing my sword"? Holy Crap! So they're making the game easier to play, with tons more options? How can you not love it?!?!
I for one hate the implications that parties will be able to fight ad nauseum, that every round the player will have to waste time figuring out which cool ability to use next, spellcasters slowed the game down enough. Sure, you can have a general idea about what spell you were going to cast but the changes from round to round in a fight often cause you to re-evaluate them. I am sure the same will apply to whatever "power abilities" meleers get.
Everything about 4E is better and if you don't agree, then just keep playing 3.5 there is plenty of material out there for you. By the way, why would you even come here if you aren't even interested in 4E? Why don't you go say some good things about 3.5 on the 3.5 boards?
I don't agree. The problem, as I have said on other threads, is that I want to keep buying products for the game I do like and that is not really a viable option. 3rd party companies will eventually migrate and that will leave me with nothing new unless I make it myself. I just don't have the time for that, but I do have the money.
Anyone still playing 2e need to have their head examined. I guess if they want to live in the past, that's their right. How pathetic for them.[/quote]
I hated 2nd, didn't buy one book for it. I still wouldn't begrudge others playing it though nor call them pathetic.
The horrible truth - "Their new marketing strategy (Evergreen Essentials) pretty much requires that anything new that sees print refer back almost exclusively to Essentials." Tony Vargas
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 10:03AM
#2244
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I don't see what is uncool about the fighter. Have a good range of choices (I like feats) and easy to play (important! many of my group shy away from caster because they don't want to read through hundreds of pages of spells).
I love fighter/mages but that is not a standard class, a standard fighter should not have magical abilities.
Yes, but most people who play fighters because they are simple don’t even tap into their real potential. To do so you need to crunch numbers and max out every feat choice.
A well played fighter can out fight anyone (even a spelled up cleric) but it becomes a nightmare for the GM and Player.
I can still remember the last game I played a high level fighter in: the GM started to hate me because almost everything he did (miss me, hit me, move past me, charge me) provoked an attack of opportunity, and I even had to work my numbers on paper for the GM to see how I was getting a sick attack bonus after I pumped 5 to 10 points into power attack.
Players who are slow playing casters never bothered to read their spells and/or suck at thinking on their feat... they are the same players that play sub-par fighters and forget to use half of their feats. It’s not the rules that slow down play, it’s the players. As the guy before me is going I’m always thinking about you my next move.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 4:38PM
#2245
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Yes, but most people who play fighters because they are simple don’t even tap into their real potential. To do so you need to crunch numbers and max out every feat choice.
A well played fighter can out fight anyone (even a spelled up cleric) but it becomes a nightmare for the GM and Player.
I can still remember the last game I played a high level fighter in: the GM started to hate me because almost everything he did (miss me, hit me, move past me, charge me) provoked an attack of opportunity, and I even had to work my numbers on paper for the GM to see how I was getting a sick attack bonus after I pumped 5 to 10 points into power attack.
Players who are slow playing casters never bothered to read their spells and/or suck at thinking on their feat... they are the same players that play sub-par fighters and forget to use half of their feats. It’s not the rules that slow down play, it’s the players. As the guy before me is going I’m always thinking about you my next move.
True enough: a well-designed fighter is a terror to behold, able to do things that no other can. Feats meant for high-level fighters, even without a specific "fighter level X" prerequisite, are very powerful things that few or no other characters have the option, really, to select. The problem is that even a fighter overloaded with these unique options "feels" at least a little generic because his options aren't intrinsic to his class, as are the options of other characters. It's an illusory effect, to be sure, but it's there. Fixing this dilemma is as simple as listing those options as fighter class features instead of bonus feats, which sounds like what they're doing already.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 02, 2007 - 5:49PM
#2246
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Exactly - so putting in a second-wind mechanic is perfectly valid (and pretty cool).
Besides, what is a healing potion but a second wind in a bottle...
Uh, a healing potion is a magical item, at least according to the rules.  I'd hate to see every character class having outright mystical or "proto-magical" class features just because "it fits the genre" or "it is COOL and makes the game more FUN". 
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2007 - 7:49AM
#2247
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2005
|
If I had to guess, I'd say 4E spellcasters would work similar to 3E spellcasters who have reserve feats. You can produce low-damage effects at will as long as you haven't used up the spells that power those effects. Then, if need be, you can still "go nova" in tougher fights.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2007 - 9:06AM
#2248
|
|
|
Uh, a healing potion is a magical item, at least according to the rules. I'd hate to see every character class having outright mystical or "proto-magical" class features just because "it fits the genre" or "it is COOL and makes the game more FUN".
Resting is not either mystical or proto-magical. It's resting.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2007 - 10:01AM
#2249
|
|
|
I hated 2nd, didn't buy one book for it. I still wouldn't begrudge others playing it though nor call them pathetic.
But I would.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 03, 2007 - 11:06AM
#2250
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2006
|
But I would.
How wonderfully open minded of you.
Anywho. How are we supposed to, in lieu of what has been hinted at, play average joe who grows into a hero under the new rules? Does this mean that every bar thug has maneuvers or that every town watchman is a weapon master in training? For me being a hero is rp not stats, not abilities, not cool powers. How will my play style function under the new rules set?
The horrible truth - "Their new marketing strategy (Evergreen Essentials) pretty much requires that anything new that sees print refer back almost exclusively to Essentials." Tony Vargas
|
|
|
