|
5 years ago ::
Nov 10, 2008 - 5:11PM
#411
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
How is going from a five person party to a six person party a DETRIMENT to the party?
You didn't say you were adding the commoner on top of the existing party with the fighter. You said that it could REPLACE the fighter or cleric, and it can't.
Oh, and you don't have to call me God, just Crazy will suffice.
If you think that the commoner could hold the same fighting spot as the cleric in the way a fighter can, you must be crazy 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 10, 2008 - 5:25PM
#412
|
|
|
You didn't say you were adding the commoner on top of the existing party with the fighter. You said that it could REPLACE the fighter or cleric, and it can't.
No, I said I could replace the word fighter in your quote. When it comes to replacing, you've admitted that the fighter doesn't help the group as the cleric does, therefore he cannot replace the cleric. I was trying to point out that the same could be said for the commoner; there's nothing wrong with playing a commoner, he doesn't reduce a party's capability, but clerics help more. That doesn't mean a commoner can't add to the party.
If you think that the commoner could hold the same fighting spot as the cleric in the way a fighter can, you must be crazy
:D I don't think the fighter can hold the same spot a fighting cleric can. The fighter can't sacrifice a full-attack to replenish his (or an ally's) hit points. A fighter trying to trip has to win two dice rolls, and spend a feat not to provoke an AoO (which, if hits, prevents the trip), but a cleric only has to spend a spell slot (Command), and win one die roll (assuming no SR). Is a feat cheaper than a spell slot?
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 5:52AM
#413
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
You are absolutely correct. Your opinion that the fighter has no role doesn't play into this at all. WoTC gave them an objective role by including them in the core PHB, and all of your opinions do nothing to change that.
WotC is wrong. If you disagree, prove the beatstick can actually do those things. No, chain trippers don't count. They only do a half assed job, and given the level of creatively expressed by their playtesters they probably never thought of that. As stated, this is simple cold hard fact.
The beatstick has absolutely no way of stopping the enemy from attacking his allies. 5' squares of difficult terrain don't block anyone. All he can do is a bit of direct damage. Except everyone can do direct damage, and no one cares about direct damage.
QED.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 6:00AM
#414
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
Yep, but there is zero wrong with playing a fighter instead. Playing a fighter doesn't hurt the party at all. Clerics just help more. That's an important distinction.
Incorrect. A party of say... Rogue, Cleric, Wizard divides the XP and loot 3 ways. Add a Fighter, it is now a four way division. Bringing the Fighter along means everyone loses a quarter of their XP and loot. This would be acceptable if the new guy added something new and unique to bolster their odds of success and justify the cost. But he doesn't. He can't even pull his own weight. You now have a resource sink in the party who you have to burn spells on to take with you, and who actively hinders you by reducing your rewards. And if he tries to ever do something he isn't good at (which is anything that isn't fighting, and sometimes even fighting) he becomes an active hindrance in a more direct way in that he is blowing stealth missions, or offending important people you need to negotiate with, or whatever.
I dunno about you, but I'd rather not babysit some incompetent if I'm out risking my life for whatever reason. I want teammates who can watch and cover my back, and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 7:19AM
#415
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Agreed, but we're not talking about choices. We're talking about fighting capability and the fighting role.
Yep, but there is zero wrong with playing a fighter instead. Playing a fighter doesn't hurt the party at all. Clerics just help more. That's an important distinction.
And if another class can do the fighters job better then obviously the fighter has no place. Yes the fighter does hurt the party with his low will save, and inability to do much. Ive seen fighters get dominated, or held every single time. Also flying monsters and anything decent out of the mm will take the fighter down in two to three hits, so yes the fighter is a liability.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 7:48AM
#416
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2001
|
Observation number 1: Fighter being able to fight all day and Fighter being able to fight with only a masterwork longsword is mutually exclusive, since he's just as dependent on magic as any caster. In fact, he's dependent on other people's spellslots to buff him.
Observation number 2: Rigor Mortis doesn't last forever and would be pretty weird to replicated, scientifically speaking. If you can Rigor Mortis a corpse forever, you probably have the power to move an automaton forever, so the point of using dead bodies preferentially kinda goes out the window. Of course, this is magic, so whether or not Undead are vulnerable to critical hits really is kinda based on how you think they work - which is entirely up to you.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 8:53AM
#417
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
Observation number 1: Fighter being able to fight all day and Fighter being able to fight with only a masterwork longsword is mutually exclusive, since he's just as dependent on magic as any caster. In fact, he's dependent on other people's spellslots to buff him.
Observation number 2: Rigor Mortis doesn't last forever and would be pretty weird to replicated, scientifically speaking. If you can Rigor Mortis a corpse forever, you probably have the power to move an automaton forever, so the point of using dead bodies preferentially kinda goes out the window. Of course, this is magic, so whether or not Undead are vulnerable to critical hits really is kinda based on how you think they work - which is entirely up to you.
Well the reason we said that they could be critted is that even with magic they still needed the joints and such places to actually move muscles and what not, ie hit them in the knee caps, or cut off a leg and they go down, they might still be atempting to crawl or whatever but effectivley they are down. Thus a rogue could get sneak attack by attacking those places, not organs just weak spots, and sorry if you stab a vampire in the eye its going to hurt
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 9:46AM
#418
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
No, I said I could replace the word fighter in your quote. When it comes to replacing, you've admitted that the fighter doesn't help the group as the cleric does, therefore he cannot replace the cleric.
Yes, he absolutely can replace the cleric. Since he still HELPS the party, he can replace any class out there. Only one that HARMS the party won't be able to replace someone.
I was trying to point out that the same could be said for the commoner; there's nothing wrong with playing a commoner, he doesn't reduce a party's capability, but clerics help more.
And your point is in error. The commoner does reduce the party's capability....by a whole lot.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 9:49AM
#419
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
WotC is wrong. If you disagree, prove the beatstick can actually do those things.
I don't have to. It is utterly impossible for WoTC to be wrong on this. They determine with absolute authority what roles are available in their game, and who fills them. YOU can only determine that the fighter isn't good enough for you to want to take on his role, not that he doesn't have a role. You didn't design the game. Another thing that you can do, is make a house rule that fighters have no role in your game, but your houserule doesn't affect D&D as a whole.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 9:51AM
#420
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Incorrect. A party of say... Rogue, Cleric, Wizard divides the XP and loot 3 ways. Add a Fighter, it is now a four way division.
We're not ADDING a fighter. We're replacing an existing character with a fighter. No exp loss for anyone. If you're going to argue, at least stay in the same conversation as the rest of us.
|
|
|
