|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 9:38AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2006
|
Give your fighter the Guardian Theme instead of the Slayer Theme. There is no reason to blanket the fighter with the defender ability.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 9:48AM
#12
|
|
|
Give your fighter the Guardian Theme instead of the Slayer Theme. There is no reason to blanket the fighter with the defender ability.
Clearly that's what the guardian theme is intended to be for. And I agree that the theme system is a better place to put it than strapping it to the fighter class. The problem is that, at least from what we've seen of it, the guardian theme doesn't seem to work completely. The guardian can stop a creature from moving directly past him, which is a start, but he can't stop it from, or punish it for, leaving again on the next turn.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 9:50AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Personally, I don't see any reason to have these types of opportunity attacks happen more than once a round, but I also believe that they should be relegated to a theme, and not a class specifically. It seems more in line with what they are currently trying to accomplish, fits the overall versatility they want, while still not giving a bonus any larger than the others I've seen... It would be similar to the Guardian one, but different in function. Against large groups of enemies, the Guardian would be more beneficial, but against the big bad bad-ass monster, the AOO style fighter would be better.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 10:00AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2011
|
For what it's worth, I do think that attacks of opportunity will be in an optional module which does help with the issue you describe. As for the "tanking" issue... that appears to now be a theme, and personally I like that. The tanking cleric in the playtest actually played quite well, and the ability to give disadvantage to attacks against adjacent allies was pretty powerful.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 10:10AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
The wizard can reshape the very fabric of reality. Let him cover his own ass, I'm off to kill some kobolds.
Seriously, though; the Wizard needs to play smart. Use Ray of Frost. Back out of melee. Don't rush into combat. Use terrain. Move to put the fighter between you and monsters in tight spaces. Don't be lazy, keep yourself alive.
If you can't carry your own weight, then why are you here? Why would I risk my life adventuring with someone who needs to be babysat constantly?
Someone seems to have played 1e/2e. I remember fondly the days where the mages had to cover their own butts and strategy came before using your cool uber-attacks.
Exactly!
IRT Topic: There is no "fighter problem" that I can see looking over the playtest. The fighter I know and love has returned to basic attack you into oblivion, while the spellcaster is flying around thinking that he's superior (he isn't).
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 2:35PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2006
|
Clearly that's what the guardian theme is intended to be for. And I agree that the theme system is a better place to put it than strapping it to the fighter class. The problem is that, at least from what we've seen of it, the guardian theme doesn't seem to work completely. The guardian can stop a creature from moving directly past him, which is a start, but he can't stop it from, or punish it for, leaving again on the next turn.
I agree - there's nothing in the playtest rules to keep someone from simply moving out of melee, but I'm more than confident that will be addressed. Aside from a 5' step, you've never been able to simply move out of melee. In Basic D&D, you could make a fighting withdrawal and move at half rate AWAY from the enemy, but you couldn't pinball off the fighter into the mage.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 4:21PM
#17
|
|
|
Clearly that's what the guardian theme is intended to be for. And I agree that the theme system is a better place to put it than strapping it to the fighter class. The problem is that, at least from what we've seen of it, the guardian theme doesn't seem to work completely. The guardian can stop a creature from moving directly past him, which is a start, but he can't stop it from, or punish it for, leaving again on the next turn.
I agree - there's nothing in the playtest rules to keep someone from simply moving out of melee, but I'm more than confident that will be addressed. Aside from a 5' step, you've never been able to simply move out of melee. In Basic D&D, you could make a fighting withdrawal and move at half rate AWAY from the enemy, but you couldn't pinball off the fighter into the mage.
This is confusing. People seem to be calling this system a throwback to AD&D, yet a key rule is missing. In AD&D you could not simply walk into Mordor past a fighter (or any combatant) without any drawbacks. In the playtest you can. Thus my suggestion to people who will have simple PCs like the ones presented here: DMs should play to kill the wizard (as appropriate) and see what happens.
DMs should not give the party any undue advantages. Monsters should try to get around the heavily armored combatants and try to kill the weaker ones first. If this is too easy, you have some valuable feedback. If certain assumptions give you the classic "feel", you should spell out those assumptions. I don't think anyone is doing the game a service by assuming that a system comparable to the AD&D one will just appear later on.
I also don't think the rules on attacks of opportunity or disengaging were intended solely to give fighters "aggro" like in World of Warcraft. That's a drastic oversimplification. Quite simply, if you find yourself fighting a strong guy in plate with a greatsword, you'd probably rather fight the halfling sneaking up on your archers, run away and use ranged attacks, or back up into a group of allies. You wouldn't stand there and trade blows with some crazy dwarf frothing at the mouth and hacking at you with his blood-drenched axe. The present rules make it trivially easy for any combatant to simply step away from the fighter or the cleric of Moradin. Again, if I were intending to play with more or less the rules presented here, I'd want to test what happens if I *don't* assume much more than what's given.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 4:26PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2010
|
I think bringing back the fighter's aura from essentials, in a theme, may be a good way to prevent too much focus fire on the weaker characters.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 5:57PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Clearly that's what the guardian theme is intended to be for. And I agree that the theme system is a better place to put it than strapping it to the fighter class. The problem is that, at least from what we've seen of it, the guardian theme doesn't seem to work completely. The guardian can stop a creature from moving directly past him, which is a start, but he can't stop it from, or punish it for, leaving again on the next turn.
I agree - there's nothing in the playtest rules to keep someone from simply moving out of melee, but I'm more than confident that will be addressed. Aside from a 5' step, you've never been able to simply move out of melee. In Basic D&D, you could make a fighting withdrawal and move at half rate AWAY from the enemy, but you couldn't pinball off the fighter into the mage.
Why is the guardian standing away from his squishies? Seems that he'd want to be standing right beside them, with his ability to enforce disadvantage on an attack being his 'threat'. You want the mage? Go for it, but you're not going to hit him so long as he's standing beside me--however yeah he's standing right beside me so you can actually try.
There's tactics involved in that.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 6:18PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
I have to agree with the crowds that like pre 4e fights. I didn't like that in 4e fights felt so much like casters with (essentially) having spells per day. It just made them feel like would you rather use a sword or spell you're doing the same thing either way.
I like it when fighters trip, grapple, disarm, push people off ledges or into walls, and all the other stuff. If the fighter is boring to play you either have a bad DM or you simply aren't creative enough to fully utilize them. Especially with the new 5e fluff. A fight can now grab and axe off a body and duel weild, or pick up a shield and use his bastard one handed. Fighters now have even greater capibility to be exactly what they should be, a vicious opponenent that can destroy anything with weapons and tactics.
With the new ready actions you get even more freedom. Maybe you are don't attack the guy in front of you so you can ready a grapple at the person running at the mage. The reaper ability even adds some cool flavor to the class. You now don't have to worry about failed checks when fighting, you always get to feel like a damage dealing machine!
The only thing I'd like to see is maybe some stances. That was the one flavor bit I loved that they added to martial classes.
|
|
|
