In a desperate manoeuver, I grab my bastard sword with both hand and charge my foe slicing a deep cut in his knee. He lose 6 hp... Well, this kind of things bore me to tears. However it doesn't have to be this way. We want to feel like we are an action hero, this is the particular reason why a lot of people prefer the 4e. The standard attack is plain boring. When you watch an action movie, the hero often try some desperate moves that can change the tide of the whole battle.
A way around this boring fight mechanics is so simple that I don't know why nobody use it, I call it fight with intent. Something any character can do so it's not game breaking, and even the monsters so it's way more challenging. You only have to describe your action and WHY you want to make it. For an exemple I would say I charge my foe and atempt to hit his legs so he fall to the ground. If my attempt is succesfull, my opponent would roll a DEX save or else he falls. As simple as that, it could even be used with spells.
And it's way way more entertaining than describing a cool moves just to hack away a few hp from your ennemy.
In a desperate manoeuver, I grab my bastard sword with both hand and charge my foe slicing a deep cut in his knee. He lose 6 hp... Well, this kind of things bore me to tears. However it doesn't have to be this way. We want to feel like we are an acti
Its basically a called shot without the penalty, if the player is creative enough, no need to apply a penalty.
Its why I like the Advantage rule, if the player is creative enough, and puts enough effort in the role-playing, I just give them advantage on the attack.
I don't need a power to tell me how I attack, I can think of that on my own.
And heck, if the manuevre seems very difficult, the DM can just as easily ask for a skill check to see if you acomplish the deed (in addition to the attack)
Absolutely, Its basically a called shot without the penalty, if the player is creative enough, no need to apply a penalty.Its why I like the Advantage rule, if the player is creative enough, and puts enough effort in the role-playing, I just give the
Balance is an issue with the method you describe. Consider the player that charge every humanoid and says, "I aim for the neck and try to decapitate him." Every. Single. Battle. It's way more powerful than just knocking the enemy prone.
I totally agree that combat could (and should) be made more interesting and dynamic by such descriptions. I'm not sure a mechanic is necessary though.
Balance is an issue with the method you describe. Consider the player that charge every humanoid and says, "I aim for the neck and try to decapitate him." Every. Single. Battle. It's way more powerful than just knocking the enemy prone.I totally ag
We shouldn't be looking for workarounds to boring fight mechanics though.
True, but I'd LOVE to see the fighter with builds that expressly give bonuses to improvised weapons, crazy attack stunts, and unusual tactics.
Swashbuckler the Theme and Background. Or Fighter "school".
True, but I'd LOVE to see the fighter with builds that expressly give bonuses to improvised weapons, crazy attack stunts, and unusual tactics.Swashbuckler the Theme and Background. Or Fighter "school".
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle? You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
We shouldn't be looking for workarounds to boring fight mechanics though.
The fights mechanics are not that boring, they are just not well explained. When you give a class some manoeuvers to use. Everyones use them, when you say what an attack is. Everyone just do plain attacks why little room for improv.
The fights mechanics are not that boring, they are just not well explained. When you give a class some manoeuvers to use. Everyones use them, when you say what an attack is. Everyone just do plain attacks why little room for improv.
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
Sure IF I can pick a theme that gives the Magic Missle alternative attack styles. MIRV, around corners, rebound attacks, etc.
Does the Fighter get this as well? Doesn't look like it right now.
Picking a "Theme" should not be what makes a class interesting. If a class needs something outside of itself to make if fun that is failed design.
Sure IF I can pick a theme that gives the Magic Missle alternative attack styles. MIRV, around corners, rebound attacks, etc.[/quote]Does the Fighter get this as well? Doesn't look like it right now.Picking a "Theme" should not be what makes a class
In a desperate manoeuver, I grab my bastard sword with both hand and charge my foe slicing a deep cut in his knee. He lose 6 hp... Well, this kind of things bore me to tears. However it doesn't have to be this way. We want to feel like we are an action hero, this is the particular reason why a lot of people prefer the 4e. The standard attack is plain boring. When you watch an action movie, the hero often try some desperate moves that can change the tide of the whole battle.
A way around this boring fight mechanics is so simple that I don't know why nobody use it, I call it fight with intent. Something any character can do so it's not game breaking, and even the monsters so it's way more challenging. You only have to describe your action and WHY you want to make it. For an exemple I would say I charge my foe and atempt to hit his legs so he fall to the ground. If my attempt is succesfull, my opponent would roll a DEX save or else he falls. As simple as that, it could even be used with spells.
And it's way way more entertaining than describing a cool moves just to hack away a few hp from your ennemy.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comfortable with those basic rules, provide rules to add any level of detail you want to add in your game, hit locations, bypassing armor, etc. No need to resort to Powers like in 4E to handle non-standard attacks. I actually think that Powers doesn't resolve that issue. Just for example, suppose that :
DM: "The drunk, smelly pirate goes and meet you at the bar and then gropes your ass." Pirate: "Well, well, what do we have here ?" Samara, the female Barbarian: "I kick that b*stard in the nuts"
So unless PCs come with special "Kick in da nuts" Powers, I don't think you'll be able to handle that situation with that. As a DM, I wouldn't refrain the Barbarian from attempting this because "there is no rule around kicking someone in the nuts". Using 2E ? I would do let her do so with a Called Shot and go with it. You don't need to have every option spelled out on your sheet to let your character act that way, either in combat or outside of it.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comf
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horseman falls of his horse. Striking a bottle of beer so it explode in the face of the one who drinks it to blind him... many many great way to use it.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horsema
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horseman falls of his horse. Striking a bottle of beer so it explode in the face of the one who drinks it to blind him... many many great way to use it.
This in essence is was the Psionic Soul knife use to be. One trick, all the trimmings.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horsema
In a desperate manoeuver, I grab my bastard sword with both hand and charge my foe slicing a deep cut in his knee. He lose 6 hp... Well, this kind of things bore me to tears. However it doesn't have to be this way. We want to feel like we are an action hero, this is the particular reason why a lot of people prefer the 4e. The standard attack is plain boring. When you watch an action movie, the hero often try some desperate moves that can change the tide of the whole battle.
A way around this boring fight mechanics is so simple that I don't know why nobody use it, I call it fight with intent. Something any character can do so it's not game breaking, and even the monsters so it's way more challenging. You only have to describe your action and WHY you want to make it. For an exemple I would say I charge my foe and atempt to hit his legs so he fall to the ground. If my attempt is succesfull, my opponent would roll a DEX save or else he falls. As simple as that, it could even be used with spells.
And it's way way more entertaining than describing a cool moves just to hack away a few hp from your ennemy.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comfortable with those basic rules, provide rules to add any level of detail you want to add in your game, hit locations, bypassing armor, etc. No need to resort to Powers like in 4E to handle non-standard attacks. I actually think that Powers doesn't resolve that issue. Just for example, suppose that :
DM: "The drunk, smelly pirate goes and meet you at the bar and then gropes your ass." Pirate: "Well, well, what do we have here ?" Samara, the female Barbarian: "I kick that b*stard in the nuts"
So unless PCs come with special "Kick in da nuts" Powers, I don't think you'll be able to handle that situation with that. As a DM, I wouldn't refrain the Barbarian from attempting this because "there is no rule around kicking someone in the nuts". Using 2E ? I would do let her do so with a Called Shot and go with it. You don't need to have every option spelled out on your sheet to let your character act that way, either in combat or outside of it.
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comf
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Then I did missread you Sorry about that, I understood it the other way around I too, don't think the Fighter is boring. He's as boring as you want it to be.
That whole premise that the Fighter is boring does rub me the wrong way, there is countless RPG systems out there that don't use Powers; L'Oeil Noir, Dragon Warriors, TSR-era D&D, Pendragon, Legionnaire, Cyberpunk 2020, etc. Do all these games suck because they don't feature Powers ? I find that kind of statement insulting to a lot of RPGs out there.
Then I did missread you :) Sorry about that, I understood it the other way around :) I too, don't think the Fighter is boring. He's as boring as you want it to be. That whole premise that the Fighter is boring does rub me the wrong way, there is coun
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horseman falls of his horse. Striking a bottle of beer so it explode in the face of the one who drinks it to blind him... many many great way to use it.
Well that clinches it then! Wizards are only allowed to use Magic Missle. LOOK at all the cool things you can do with it!!!!!!
/sarcasm.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horsema
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.
Special maneuvers are just standardized rules for how you try and what happens if you succeed. It's no more spell-like than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. Having it on the character sheet is good design because it helps players with poor memories and prevents time-consuming flipping thru books.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.Specia
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horseman falls of his horse. Striking a bottle of beer so it explode in the face of the one who drinks it to blind him... many many great way to use it.
Well that clinches it then! Wizards are only allowed to use Magic Missle. LOOK at all the cool things you can do with it!!!!!!
/sarcasm.
For an attacking spell, it's more than enough. What is a fireball, a big magic missile that strike multiple foes. Wait a minute we also have chain lightning... a magic missile that strike foes who are next to another... And hmmm we also have cone of cold... a magic missile that strikes a strange pattern in front of you...
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horsema
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.
Special maneuvers are just standardized rules for how you try and what happens if you succeed. It's no more spell-like than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. Having it on the character sheet is good design because it helps players with poor memories and prevents time-consuming flipping thru books.
I didn't think of it as a fancy rules, if someone falls he is down until he can get up, if he drops his weapon well he have to get it back. All other effect should last only one round blind, stun, pain, doubt, etc etc.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.Specia
The Playtest didn't include rules on combat manoeuvres.... so for the time being we have to make them up on our own.
Personally, I just ask for an Ability check (perhaps a contest), depending on the situation.
If someone does a called shot, I just make him do a Dex check in addition to the attack. If someone tries to topple his target as he strikes him with the shield, I make him do a Str check in addtion to the attack.
and so on..
Older additions have 'Called Shot' penalties.. but I dislike those because high DCs and Penalties discourages players from being creative, and that is the opposite of what were trying to accomplish.
The Playtest didn't include rules on combat manoeuvres.... so for the time being we have to make them up on our own.Personally, I just ask for an Ability check (perhaps a contest), depending on the situation.If someone does a called shot, I just make
The Playtest didn't include rules on combat manoeuvres.... so for the time being we have to make them up on our own.
Personally, I just ask for an Ability check (perhaps a contest), depending on the situation.
If someone does a called shot, I just make him do a Dex check in addition to the attack. If someone tries to topple his target as he strikes him with the shield, I make him do a Str check in addtion to the attack.
and so on..
Older additions have 'Called Shot' penalties.. but I dislike those because high DCs and Penalties discourages players from being creative, and that is the opposite of what were trying to accomplish.
I could'nt agree more! However just to speed up gameplay I ask the target for a save. After all if everyone can use called shot it's not unfair if someone doesn't use them.
I could'nt agree more! However just to speed up gameplay I ask the target for a save. After all if everyone can use called shot it's not unfair if someone doesn't use them.
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horseman falls of his horse. Striking a bottle of beer so it explode in the face of the one who drinks it to blind him... many many great way to use it.
Well that clinches it then! Wizards are only allowed to use Magic Missle. LOOK at all the cool things you can do with it!!!!!!
/sarcasm.
For an attacking spell, it's more than enough. What is a fireball, a big magic missile that strike multiple foes. Wait a minute we also have chain lightning... a magic missile that strike foes who are next to another... And hmmm we also have cone of cold... a magic missile that strikes a strange pattern in front of you...
But does the basic Magic Missle get to do that? No. Does the Basic Fighter presented here get a way to modify his attacks like that? No
If a class cannot be interesting based on its own standings there is no real point to having it. Sure you can do interesting things with the Fighters basic attack, and its been proved you can with just "Magic Missle", yet the Wizard gets more then that and is thus a better and more exciting class. The Fighter isn't.
If in real life I was given magic missile, you would be amazed of the creativity I would find. Striking a hand so the foe make his weapon drop, shooting them on a tree branch so it fall on the foe trapping it. Aiming for a straddle strap so a horsema
Can the magic missile or the fighter attack do this? Of course they can! Any DM that would not let you improvise this way is a bad DM. Unless you want to play a computer game, pen & paper is there for you to try ANYTHING. The rules are there as guidelines and no one should think the fighter is boring because of the lack of 'powers'
Can the magic missile or the fighter attack do this? Of course they can! Any DM that would not let you improvise this way is a bad DM. Unless you want to play a computer game, pen & paper is there for you to try ANYTHING. The rules are there as guide
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.
Special maneuvers are just standardized rules for how you try and what happens if you succeed. It's no more spell-like than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. Having it on the character sheet is good design because it helps players with poor memories and prevents time-consuming flipping thru books.
I didn't think of it as a fancy rules, if someone falls he is down until he can get up, if he drops his weapon well he have to get it back. All other effect should last only one round blind, stun, pain, doubt, etc etc.
A rule is a rule is a rule. The point is that if you're going to have attacks that do more than damage, you need a rule that sets out how you attempt it (is there a penalty? How much? Is it mechanically viable for players to do this or will straight damage always be better?), and what the effects are (how long does it take to getup or find a weapon? How much damage to someone's armor does a given hit do? What does it mean to be in pain or doubt? Does this give the Rogue advantage or just the fighter?).
Now we move on to a different question - should the fighter, as the designated master of arms character, have a class feature that makes the fighter better at called shots that produce particular effects (I.e, maneuvers) than other classes? Is this necessary to make the class tactically engaging enough for those who want a more tactical fighter? Can this be done in such a way that those who prefer a simple fighter can still play one? Is a straight numerical advantage an interesting and compelling mechanic, or is something else needed?
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.Specia
Can the magic missile or the fighter attack do this? Of course they can! Any DM that would not let you improvise this way is a bad DM. Unless you want to play a computer game, pen & paper is there for you to try ANYTHING. The rules are there as guidelines and no one should think the fighter is boring because of the lack of 'powers'
Any DM that lets you go for the eyes with every attack is a bad GM. Your little godmodding exercise has nothing to do with DnD.
Any DM that lets you go for the eyes with every attack is a bad GM. Your little godmodding exercise has nothing to do with DnD.
Can the magic missile or the fighter attack do this? Of course they can! Any DM that would not let you improvise this way is a bad DM. Unless you want to play a computer game, pen & paper is there for you to try ANYTHING. The rules are there as guidelines and no one should think the fighter is boring because of the lack of 'powers'
Any DM that lets you go for the eyes with every attack is a bad GM. Your little godmodding exercise has nothing to do with DnD.
Is going for the eye, save or be blind for a round godmodding? I don't think so, should there be penality if you try? NO Should it have penalities if you fail... YES It's not godmodding, it's allowing players to be creative and rewarding them if they want to try special things. Is it the spirit of D&D? I'll be bolder than that and say it's the spirit of EVERY pen & paper role playing game.
Any DM that lets you go for the eyes with every attack is a bad GM. Your little godmodding exercise has nothing to do with DnD.[/quote]Is going for the eye, save or be blind for a round godmodding? I don't think so, should there be penality if you tr
I think that the fighter will be more interesting with packages that will come later.
With feats, backgrounds, themes a fighter will NOT be just an auto swing guy.
You'll be able to get rage as a feat(most probably), you will be able to use maneuvers(trip, disarm, grapple, sunder, bullrush), power attack, whirlwind attack, special critical moves, forcing critical with some disadvantage to yourself.
there are many possibilities that we can think of right now. Like using your own Ki turn your sword into flaming weapon. There WILL be options to make your fighter interesting.
Because in it there will be barbarian, ranger and paladin as a special theme.
And if you want to use custom and not predefined theme you can mix and match them.
But point is that with selecting feats you will be able to choose how many "daily" feats, how many "at will" feats, how many "maneuver" feats and how many "utility" feats you need and want.
I think that the fighter will be more interesting with packages that will come later.With feats, backgrounds, themes a fighter will NOT be just an auto swing guy.You'll be able to get rage as a feat(most probably), you will be able to use maneuvers(t
it's allowing players to be creative and rewarding them if they want to try special things.
But nothing about this is unique to the fighter. During combat, all of the classes could be attacking and trying to do such special maneuvers. There is nothing in the rules, as of yet, to indicate that the fighter is better at this than anyone else.
But nothing about this is unique to the fighter. During combat, all of the classes could be attacking and trying to do such special maneuvers. There is nothing in the rules, as of yet, to indicate that the fighter is better at this than anyone else.
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.
Special maneuvers are just standardized rules for how you try and what happens if you succeed. It's no more spell-like than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. Having it on the character sheet is good design because it helps players with poor memories and prevents time-consuming flipping thru books.
I didn't think of it as a fancy rules, if someone falls he is down until he can get up, if he drops his weapon well he have to get it back. All other effect should last only one round blind, stun, pain, doubt, etc etc.
A rule is a rule is a rule. The point is that if you're going to have attacks that do more than damage, you need a rule that sets out how you attempt it (is there a penalty? How much? Is it mechanically viable for players to do this or will straight damage always be better?), and what the effects are (how long does it take to getup or find a weapon? How much damage to someone's armor does a given hit do? What does it mean to be in pain or doubt? Does this give the Rogue advantage or just the fighter?).
Now we move on to a different question - should the fighter, as the designated master of arms character, have a class feature that makes the fighter better at called shots that produce particular effects (I.e, maneuvers) than other classes? Is this necessary to make the class tactically engaging enough for those who want a more tactical fighter? Can this be done in such a way that those who prefer a simple fighter can still play one? Is a straight numerical advantage an interesting and compelling mechanic, or is something else needed?
I personally like the keep it simple method, everyone can try called shot with no penalities, if they succeed. But a minor hindrance if they fail, something like lose 2 to AC due to failure. Of course master at arms could remove this special penality with a special skill.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.Specia
Trance-zg - the danger with this approach is that it replicates the Fighter's feat tax from 3.X. In order to get interestingness, you have to use up feats and themes that could go to other purposes (effectiveness in the interaction and exploration pillars, rounding out a character concept, etc.), while other classes get class features and feats and themes on top of that.
Trance-zg - the danger with this approach is that it replicates the Fighter's feat tax from 3.X. In order to get interestingness, you have to use up feats and themes that could go to other purposes (effectiveness in the interaction and exploration pi
it's allowing players to be creative and rewarding them if they want to try special things.
But nothing about this is unique to the fighter. During combat, all of the classes could be attacking and trying to do such special maneuvers. There is nothing in the rules, as of yet, to indicate that the fighter is better at this than anyone else.
Usually the fighter is better at hitting opponents, if other classes can't hit as well they will be at a disavantage in doing called shots. Unless called shots are allowed on the magic missile, the mage would be the best user of called shots.
But nothing about this is unique to the fighter. During combat, all of the classes could be attacking and trying to do such special maneuvers. There is nothing in the rules, as of yet, to indicate that the fighter is better at this than anyone else.[
I think we have raised an interesting point here, is it more interesting to have 'powers' as the mage and other classes get. Or is it possible to have an interesting basic core mechanic that makes 'powers' fun but not the only thing interesting in the game. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion. I think that 'powers' shouldn't be an obligation to have interesting characters. They might be fun, but this shouldn't be what makes the system.
I think we have raised an interesting point here, is it more interesting to have 'powers' as the mage and other classes get. Or is it possible to have an interesting basic core mechanic that makes 'powers' fun but not the only thing interesting in th
I personally like the keep it simple method, everyone can try called shot with no penalities, if they succeed. But a minor hindrance if they fail, something like lose 2 to AC due to failure. Of course master at arms could remove this special penality with a special skill.
Ok, I feel we're getting somewhere. Some new questions emerge:
1. If the Fighter's edge in maneuevers/called shots is an effective +2 to AC, does this make the Fighter both distinct and viable as a character class? If the only difference between a Fighter trying to Sunder and a Rogue or Ranger trying to Sunder is a +2 to hit, will that be enough to make the Fighter class worth playing given the class features on other characters (this last part may be mooted if problems with Medium and Heavy armor are fixed, because ATM the Fighter doesn't really get an AC advantage from being able to use those classes of armor)? 2. Is it as compelling a mechanic as a wizard's spells or a rogue's sneak attack? I would argue not; mathmatical advantages are rather passive and can be rather invisible, they don't involve the player doing things or being active.
Ok, I feel we're getting somewhere. Some new questions emerge:1. If the Fighter's edge in maneuevers/called shots is an effective +2 to AC, does this make the Fighter both distinct and viable as a character class? If the only difference between a Fig
Trance-zg - the danger with this approach is that it replicates the Fighter's feat tax from 3.X. In order to get interestingness, you have to use up feats and themes that could go to other purposes (effectiveness in the interaction and exploration pillars, rounding out a character concept, etc.), while other classes get class features and feats and themes on top of that.
not necessary. Barbarian theme could give you +3 intimidate and perception. duelist could give you +3 sense motive and +3 bluff, archer would give you +3 perception and stealth, ranger would give you +2 survival, perception, stealth and nature paladin would give you +3 sense motive and heal
power attack feat can give you +1 intimidate, expertise can give you +1 sense motive, dodge feat can give you +1 tumble,
also fighter would get like 3.5e most bonus feats so he can make that choices.
not necessary. Barbarian theme could give you +3 intimidate and perception.duelist could give you +3 sense motive and +3 bluff,archer would give you +3 perception and stealth, ranger would give you +2 survival, perception, stealth and naturepaladin w
Ok, I feel we're getting somewhere. Some new questions emerge:
1. If the Fighter's edge in maneuevers/called shots is an effective +2 to AC, does this make the Fighter both distinct and viable as a character class? If the only difference between a Fighter trying to Sunder and a Rogue or Ranger trying to Sunder is a +2 to hit, will that be enough to make the Fighter class worth playing given the class features on other characters (this last part may be mooted if problems with Medium and Heavy armor are fixed, because ATM the Fighter doesn't really get an AC advantage from being able to use those classes of armor)? 2. Is it as compelling a mechanic as a wizard's spells or a rogue's sneak attack? I would argue not; mathmatical advantages are rather passive and can be rather invisible, they don't involve the player doing things or being active.
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to do a standard attack again, and again, and again. This is what makes the fighter boring, not the lack of sneak attack mechanics or the ability to use a special distinct power. Would called shots give him a dinstinct advantage, maybe not. Would they make him more interesting to play without the need to ressort to powers? Deninitely!
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to
he wants to take a improvised action that slows or trips, and make a attack. this is not alouwed in the current rule set. as the tripping slowing is a improvised action and you only have 1 action on your turn so you need to chose between attacking dealing damage or the improvised action to trip.
my sugestion would be the folowing: codify a few of the more common combat manuvers, slow, knock prone, disarm, push, couse target to have disadvantage on next attack. would be some examples.
when a fighter attacks with advantage he choses one of the basic codified combat actions. ( the fighter might have a list limiting him to certain combat actions.) if both of his attack rolls hit the fighter deals damage as normal but also performs the combat manuver.
wel looking at the OP post i see one problem.he wants to take a improvised action that slows or trips, and make a attack.this is not alouwed in the current rule set.as the tripping slowing is a improvised action and you only have 1 action on your tur
he wants to take a improvised action that slows or trips, and make a attack. this is not alouwed in the current rule set. as the tripping slowing is a improvised action and you only have 1 action on your turn so you need to chose between attacking dealing damage or the improvised action to trip.
my sugestion would be the folowing: codify a few of the more common combat manuvers, slow, knock prone, disarm, push, couse target to have disadvantage on next attack. would be some examples.
when a fighter attacks with advantage he choses one of the basic codified combat actions. ( the fighter might have a list limiting him to certain combat actions.) if both of his attack rolls hit the fighter deals damage as normal but also performs the combat manuver.
That would certainly be easy to implement, and give the fighter an advantage. Here's one : everyone can try manoeuvers, but only the fighter also deal damage if it connect.
That would certainly be easy to implement, and give the fighter an advantage. Here's one : everyone can try manoeuvers, but only the fighter also deal damage if it connect.
My biggest beef with Powers and Feats is that if it provides for a lot of extra customization for the character, it does create an extra layer of complexity and the requirement of having to use gaming jargon to play the game. Let me explain.
I was introducted to D&D (I was approx. 12yo, it was 1E) by simply have the DM throw me a character sheet of a human barbarian and then proceeded to start playing right away. No need to learn the rules, as long as the DM can handle them, you can play because you can dictate what you want your character to do in combat by using plain english, no gaming jargon at all. Yes, it does mean that the Fighter "will hit with his sword", but this way, I can start gaming right-off the bat with a complete RPG neophyte without even having to explain how the game works at all. Yes, it does mean I'll have to assist him when he'll make checks/attacks/saves, but as long as he can simply describe all his character actions in plain english, HE CAN PLAY. No need to ask him how much of a penalty he is going to give himself to do more damage with his Power Attack. No need to ask him which Power he'll use that round to then explain him what a Shift/Mark/etc. is. We can start gaming right away.
I'm used to play with these kind of casual gamers; they want to have fun without having to learn a sh*t load of rules. As long as I, the DM, know all the rules, anyone can participate. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of Feats/Powers/Themes and other customization rules. I'm saying, the CORE game shouldn't require them. They should be optional, especially with the fact that DND Next is supposed to be modular. Heck, even in 2E, proficiencies were clearly indentified as being optional.
What I'm trying to articulate is that TSR-era D&D let you be able to play right away by simply throwing a characters sheet at the player and start gaming right away. No need to learn any gaming jargon. Make CORE rules work that way and make the rest available for more rules/details hungry gamers, but make it OPTIONAL. The more people who can play the game, the merrier.
My biggest beef with Powers and Feats is that if it provides for a lot of extra customization for the character, it does create an extra layer of complexity and the requirement of having to use gaming jargon to play the game. Let me explain.I was int
My biggest beef with Powers and Feats is that if it provides for a lot of extra customization for the character, it does create an extra layer of complexity and the requirement of having to use gaming jargon to play the game. Let me explain.
I was introducted to D&D (I was approx. 12yo, it was 1E) by simply have the DM throw me a character sheet of a human barbarian and then proceeded to start playing right away. No need to learn the rules, as long as the DM can handle them, you can play because you can dictate what you want your character to do in combat by using plain english, no gaming jargon at all. Yes, it does mean that the Fighter "will hit with his sword", but this way, I can start gaming right-off the bat with a complete RPG neophyte without even having to explain how the game works at all. Yes, it does mean I'll have to assist him when he'll make checks/attacks/saves, but as long as he can simply describe all his character actions in plain english, HE CAN PLAY. No need to ask him how much of a penalty he is going to give himself to do more damage with his Power Attack. No need to ask him which Power he'll use that round to then explain him what a Shift/Mark/etc. is. We can start gaming right away.
I'm used to play with these kind of casual gamers; they want to have fun without having to learn a sh*t load of rules. As long as I, the DM, know all the rules, anyone can participate. Now, I'm not saying we should get rid of Feats/Powers/Themes and other customization rules. I'm saying, the CORE game shouldn't require them. They should be optional, especially with the fact that DND Next is supposed to be modular. Heck, even in 2E, proficiencies were clearly indentified as being optional.
What I'm trying to articulate is that TSR-era D&D let you be able to play right away by simply throwing a characters sheet at the player and start gaming right away. No need to learn any gaming jargon. Make CORE rules work that way and make the rest available for more rules/details hungry gamers, but make it OPTIONAL. The more people who can play the game, the merrier.
I couldn't agree more!!!! You may have struck the whole point of this! Describe in plain english what you want to do, let the DM handle what it means! This is why we need strong core mechanics to support this kind of play.
I couldn't agree more!!!! You may have struck the whole point of this! Describe in plain english what you want to do, let the DM handle what it means! This is why we need strong core mechanics to support this kind of play.
In a desperate manoeuver, I grab my bastard sword with both hand and charge my foe slicing a deep cut in his knee. He lose 6 hp... Well, this kind of things bore me to tears. However it doesn't have to be this way. We want to feel like we are an action hero, this is the particular reason why a lot of people prefer the 4e. The standard attack is plain boring. When you watch an action movie, the hero often try some desperate moves that can change the tide of the whole battle.
A way around this boring fight mechanics is so simple that I don't know why nobody use it, I call it fight with intent. Something any character can do so it's not game breaking, and even the monsters so it's way more challenging. You only have to describe your action and WHY you want to make it. For an exemple I would say I charge my foe and atempt to hit his legs so he fall to the ground. If my attempt is succesfull, my opponent would roll a DEX save or else he falls. As simple as that, it could even be used with spells.
And it's way way more entertaining than describing a cool moves just to hack away a few hp from your ennemy.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comfortable with those basic rules, provide rules to add any level of detail you want to add in your game, hit locations, bypassing armor, etc. No need to resort to Powers like in 4E to handle non-standard attacks. I actually think that Powers doesn't resolve that issue. Just for example, suppose that :
DM: "The drunk, smelly pirate goes and meet you at the bar and then gropes your ass." Pirate: "Well, well, what do we have here ?" Samara, the female Barbarian: "I kick that b*stard in the nuts"
So unless PCs come with special "Kick in da nuts" Powers, I don't think you'll be able to handle that situation with that. As a DM, I wouldn't refrain the Barbarian from attempting this because "there is no rule around kicking someone in the nuts". Using 2E ? I would do let her do so with a Called Shot and go with it. You don't need to have every option spelled out on your sheet to let your character act that way, either in combat or outside of it.
Absolutely, 2E had all those choices worked out in the fighter´s hand book, with the maneuvers and called shots you could attempt practically everything, every power you got for the fighter can be covered with this rules improvisation wise it´s no different than 4E. You can kick someone’s balls in 4E without a power, but I know many DMs won´t allow it because it´s abusive and etc...
I dear to say, it was as much fun to play with a Fighter in 2E before powers and stuff just with maneuver and called shots, than with the power system. The fact that a fighter could get several attacks per round was a huge plus to.
I guess D&D is going in this direction with martial characters, not exactly as 2E but somewhat in that direction, we just didn´t see the stuff yet.
The problem is actually lack of creativity. Non creative 4E players stick to the powers stiff description and limit their attempts only to that. Which is really boring IMO. Non creative player of old 2E fighter say only “I attack” … boring to. If you are creative, as this thread starter suggested ou can have fun with booth approaches.
And all those options were easily handled in 2E by using... Called Shots. There was a ton of Called Shots details/options in the Complete Fighter's Handbook to satisfy all your needs. But I do think that core rules should be simple, once you get comf
The problem is actually lack of creativity. Non creative 4E players stick to the powers stiff description and limit their attempts only to that. Which is really boring IMO. Non creative player of old 2E fighter say only “I attack” … boring to. If you are creative, as this thread starter suggested ou can have fun with booth approaches.
The problem is not the lack of creativity, you are making your own experience as a rule in the game and remember there are many types of players and many types of DMs. I had many players with lots interesting ideas and let them use them even in 4e (for those who think 4e evades creativity), that was not the problem at all, but as any player they will find other groups and other DMs that’s where the problem begins, what I allowed they forbid and they stick to the rule; for example and that’s my own experience I used to play lots of vampire the masquerade and it was simple to tell and action and the DM put the difficulty for that action you throw the dice and you did or didn’t, easy, lots of imagination, my first D&D session try to do the same thing, I had a druid I told the DM I jump to them while I’m jumping I wave my smicitar to both enemies and try to push them with the impulse, the DM told me to throw the d20 then he told me you move and hit one of your enemies, I said but what happen to all my action I told? And he answered you can jump, you did it, as you only have one attack you hit one of your foes, and nothing more because you don´t have any attacks or actions left, next!!!.
Sometimes creativity it’s not the problem it’s the way you approach the game, you can be strict with the rules or you can houserule them to make a enjoyable experience to the players, but even though there’s a player who says the rules doesn’t allow that, anyway you cannot push all players to a style you have and allow you to improvise. In the other hand why do I have to read all those pages of pages of spells, if I can improvise and have creativity to made my own spells?.
The real problem is lack of coherence. Why a spellcaster has so many options written and martial classes instead have few, have to improvise and beg for DMs approval?, let them both have nice sets of options written or have them few, but to both type of classes… it’s about lack of coherence not lack of creativity, anyone at any edition have creativity that’s why we play RPGs, because we imagine the world that has been told to us and we interact with it…
So please let’s forget about misconceptions of editions
The problem is not the lack of creativity, you are making your own experience as a rule in the game and remember there are many types of players and many types of DMs. I had many players with lots interesting ideas and let them use them even in 4e (f
They problem is the difference between an 16 Str fighter, a 16 Str cleric, and a 16 Str rogue.
Currently we don't know. But when we do get the character creation rules the difference better be huge.
In 2e the fighter had a much better chance of hitting so improvised attacks were better without the fighter. Currently we don't know the attack bonus per level nor the number of hits, so we don't know if the fighter is better at improvisation.
BUT WHEN WE DO learn the creation rules and the fighter is still relying on improvisation, it better be the best class at it or the game will fail.
The problem is not the lack of creativity.They problem is the difference between an 16 Str fighter, a 16 Str cleric, and a 16 Str rogue. Currently we don't know. But when we do get the character creation rules the difference better be huge.In 2e the
Trance-zg - the danger with this approach is that it replicates the Fighter's feat tax from 3.X. In order to get interestingness, you have to use up feats and themes that could go to other purposes (effectiveness in the interaction and exploration pillars, rounding out a character concept, etc.), while other classes get class features and feats and themes on top of that.
not necessary. Barbarian theme could give you +3 intimidate and perception. duelist could give you +3 sense motive and +3 bluff, archer would give you +3 perception and stealth, ranger would give you +2 survival, perception, stealth and nature paladin would give you +3 sense motive and heal
power attack feat can give you +1 intimidate, expertise can give you +1 sense motive, dodge feat can give you +1 tumble,
also fighter would get like 3.5e most bonus feats so he can make that choices.
Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are in as classes, so that's out.
And again, we have the issue of whether if a Rogue or Barbarian picks up "fightery" feats, what happens to the distinctiveness of the Fighter.
not necessary. Barbarian theme could give you +3 intimidate and perception.duelist could give you +3 sense motive and +3 bluff,archer would give you +3 perception and stealth, ranger would give you +2 survival, perception, stealth and naturepaladin w
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to do a standard attack again, and again, and again. This is what makes the fighter boring, not the lack of sneak attack mechanics or the ability to use a special distinct power. Would called shots give him a dinstinct advantage, maybe not. Would they make him more interesting to play without the need to ressort to powers? Deninitely!
Powers aren't a necessity, but if called shots are distinctive actions, then they are indistinguishable from at-will powers.
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to do a standard attack again, and again, and again. This is what makes the fighter boring, not the lack of sneak attack mechanics or the ability to use a special distinct power. Would called shots give him a dinstinct advantage, maybe not. Would they make him more interesting to play without the need to ressort to powers? Deninitely!
Powers aren't a necessity, but if called shots are distinctive actions, then they are indistinguishable from at-will powers.
You are right about it! Then let everyone to have at will manoeuvers that have effects. Of course the fighter has to excel above others on this. I also somewhat agree with Sadness Lord when he says it's also about lack of coherence. Other classes have a ton of options, fighter have none. However I also think fighter options should be more like once a day ignore damage, do an automatic critical or succeed at a save without a roll.
You know what bugs me the most, it's the feel that everyone have that 'powers' are a necessity. What should make the fighter stand appart is the feel that he is an unstopable combat machine. However, the price to pay for this awesomeness is having to
If you have called shots with no penalties and no codification, what's to stop a player from doing Called Shot: Eye with his bow every round? What stops him from doing Called Shot: Neck with his sword?
All this does is attempt to bypass the hit point system with magic tea party, because there is no codification. I would have no problem for example, with called shot using a 3.5 style power attack mechanic, where you take penalty to hit (because you're aiming for a specific spot) to get a bonus to damage (since you're aiming for that spot). But even that requires more rules than what we have. And since numbers don't seem to scale in 5e, the called shots wouldn't get any better at higher levels anyway.
If you have called shots with no penalties and no codification, what's to stop a player from doing Called Shot: Eye with his bow every round? What stops him from doing Called Shot: Neck with his sword?All this does is attempt to bypass the hit point
My fighter in this test who is a new player asked me why is there an chapter only for casters and none for fighters or rogues (martial)? and I told him that magic is more complex and need lots of explanation; and he replied but fighting movements are complex too, there should be a chapter where we could see nice fighting movements that allow us to make more damage or inflict conditions to enemies, and as I’m testing the rules I said, let’s wait until official rules come out and depending on what’s on them we will houserule or simply quit the system.
That is an example on how players feel that the class they elected has less “options”, less pages, less explanation of how they work, as I told before if casters have many options called spells, give the martial classes other set of options not the same in function, but almost the same in length, it doesn´t matter if that options are called maneuvers, hot shot, fight styles, sexy moves, but give us equanimity of options between caster and no casters classes.
My fighter in this test who is a new player asked me why is there an chapter only for casters and none for fighters or rogues (martial)? and I told him that magic is more complex and need lots of explanation; and he replied but fighting movements are
While I am sure we all have pretty strong opinions all over the place on 4th Edition, one of the things I did enjoy is that it gave the melee many more options. Now they could help control the battlefield, they could do some minor healing, they could either improve friends or disadvantage foes. In short, it gave them options. Things to do that don't simply involve smacking things with a weapon.
Currently "Next" seems to be more of the same for the melee. I don't know if this is best solved by feats or class abilities, but this seems like a downgrade in terms of character development. To sum it up - boring.
... the fighter is boring.There, I said it.While I am sure we all have pretty strong opinions all over the place on 4th Edition, one of the things I did enjoy is that it gave the melee many more options. Now they could help control the battlefield,
Evidently, giving the fighter options "makes them just like wizards", as I've seen complaints that 4E does this on this forum.
The ONLY way to play a fighter is as a brainless imbecile swinging an axe like mowing grass. This is how he was played in the past and what is traditional therefore must be superior.
I, and others on this forum, have been arguing against this. If the answer to "fighters are boring!" is "improvise!" than why not have a wizard have only 1 spell, magic missile, and leave the rest up to improvisation? Because tradition. And that's not a good enough reason.
An intelligent, tactical, versatile fighter is every bit as much a fighter as the one who can only say "I hit it with my axe. Again."
If you think fighters are too complicated, spam your MBA, don't cripple the fighter.
If your only goal is to hack and slash mindlessly, then just MBA, don't force everyone else to take a lobotomy to play the class.
Evidently, giving the fighter options "makes them just like wizards", as I've seen complaints that 4E does this on this forum. The ONLY way to play a fighter is as a brainless imbecile swinging an axe like mowing grass. This is how he was played in t
Evidently, giving the fighter options "makes them just like wizards", as I've seen complaints that 4E does this on this forum.
The ONLY way to play a fighter is as a brainless imbecile swinging an axe like mowing grass. This is how he was played in the past and what is traditional therefore must be superior.
I, and others on this forum, have been arguing against this. If the answer to "fighters are boring!" is "improvise!" than why not have a wizard have only 1 spell, magic missile, and leave the rest up to improvisation? Because tradition. And that's not a good enough reason.
An intelligent, tactical, versatile fighter is every bit as much a fighter as the one who can only say "I hit it with my axe. Again."
If you think fighters are too complicated, spam your MBA, don't cripple the fighter.
If your only goal is to hack and slash mindlessly, then just MBA, don't force everyone else to take a lobotomy to play the class.
See the problem we have is... the fighter, currently from we know, only has 1 advantage over every other cass:
Weapon damage Bigger hit die
So if you plan on doing something other dealing and taking damage, you are probably better suited as an equal Strength cleric.
This issue is: You can't actively (nor do you want to) take damage You can only deal damage via a weapon attack unless your DM says otherwise.
So the only way to currrently be a fightery fighter is to spam basic attacks.
Now we don't know what higher level brings but in it's current form, being a fightery fighter... is repetetive and thus boring.
See the problem we have is... the fighter, currently from we know, only has 1 advantage over every other cass:Weapon damageBigger hit dieSo if you plan on doing something other dealing and taking damage, you are probably better suited as an equal Str
I have to agree, I don't really see a reason why the magic user should have 30 different spells and the fighter has 'attack'. Sure, you can improvise and trip, the wizard can fly, blow up 10 enemies at once, etc. It just isn't the same thing at all.
I have to agree, I don't really see a reason why the magic user should have 30 different spells and the fighter has 'attack'. Sure, you can improvise and trip, the wizard can fly, blow up 10 enemies at once, etc. It just isn't the same thing at all.
Now we don't know what higher level brings but in it's current form, being a fightery fighter... is repetetive and thus boring.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters.
/sarcasm
Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advanced Fighting Fantasy suck because Warriors in it are boring. There is no other RPG system worthy to play other than 4E. Really ? We really need to go this route ?
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters./sarcasm[/quote]Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advan
Now we don't know what higher level brings but in it's current form, being a fightery fighter... is repetetive and thus boring.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters.
/sarcasm
Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advanced Fighting Fantasy suck because Warriors in it are boring. There is no other RPG system worthy to play other than 4E. Really ? We really need to go this route ?
Yes, 4e is totally the only way to make warriors interesting. There is no way you can do so without it also making else.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters./sarcasm[/quote]Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advan
While I should have been working, I thought about a 5e-y way of doing called shots that could also benefit a fighter.
Called Shots: If a character has advantage he can attempt to make a called shot on a foe. The player should describe what he is attempting to do to the DM. The DM should decide the correct save to resist the called shot. The attacker should then roll his 2 d20s. As usual, the higher die is compared to the AC to see if the attack hit. Th lower of the two dice is used as the DC for the called shot that the defender must save against.
Fighters use the higher of the two dice for the attack and for the contest DC.
Could definitely be worded better, but tada, called shots anyone can try and might not suck at, but Fighters are drastically better at.
While I should have been working, I thought about a 5e-y way of doing called shots that could also benefit a fighter.Called Shots: If a character has advantage he can attempt to make a called shot on a foe. The player should describe what he is attem
Now we don't know what higher level brings but in it's current form, being a fightery fighter... is repetetive and thus boring.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters.
/sarcasm
Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advanced Fighting Fantasy suck because Warriors in it are boring. There is no other RPG system worthy to play other than 4E. Really ? We really need to go this route ?
Yes, because Grapple, Trip, Bull Rush, Sunder, Overrun, Disarm completely spits on the game, and Tome of Battle and 4e never existed. Neither does Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, 7th Sea, 5 Rings, etc.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters./sarcasm[/quote]Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advan
Now we don't know what higher level brings but in it's current form, being a fightery fighter... is repetetive and thus boring.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters.
/sarcasm
Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advanced Fighting Fantasy suck because Warriors in it are boring. There is no other RPG system worthy to play other than 4E. Really ? We really need to go this route ?
If the game did it wrong for 20 years, then yes, spit on it. And if warriors are boring in those games, then spit on them as well.
But it's traditional, and that's all that matters./sarcasm[/quote]Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advan
Oh wait ! It's a lot nicer to simply spit on over 25 years of where the game originated from. So much nicer. Hey, let's even scream that Pendragon, Dragon Warriors, the Dark Eye, Advanced Fighting Fantasy suck because Warriors in it are boring. There is no other RPG system worthy to play other than 4E. Really ? We really need to go this route ?
When tradition starts stomping on my cherries just because I want to play a Fighter that I don't find boring and useless, then yes, tradition is going down.
You're already getting what you want out of the Fighter. I don't want your traditions standing in the way of me getting what I want.
When tradition starts stomping on my cherries just because I want to play a Fighter that I don't find boring and useless, then yes, tradition is going down.You're already getting what you want out of the Fighter. I don't want your traditions standing
Riddle me this. Would you want to play the Wizard if the only spell he had was Magic Missle?
You can improv and call shots as much as you want by the way, all you have is Magic Missle.
Sure IF I can pick a theme that gives the Magic Missle alternative attack styles. MIRV, around corners, rebound attacks, etc.
Does the Fighter get this as well? Doesn't look like it right now.
Yes, but it depends upon the person running the fighter. They've already GOT the tools to do creative things. It's right there in 5e rules about improvisation. They just need to take advantage of it. (we just won't tell the casters they can use this section as well) It also depends a little upon the DM though. Because alot of DMs? Much like they all had to be re-trained to say "Yes" in 4e? They might have to start thinking a bit more creatively for this edition.
Sure IF I can pick a theme that gives the Magic Missle alternative attack styles. MIRV, around corners, rebound attacks, etc.[/quote]Does the Fighter get this as well? Doesn't look like it right now.[/quote]Yes, but it depends upon the person running
Now imagine if that self-imposed challenge weren't self-imposed--if it were hard-coded into the game.
That's, basically, what the fighter is. It can be fun for some people to play with a underpowered underoptioned character to stretch their improvisational muscles and see what they can do with it, but such a challenge needs to be self-imposed--a module--because it simply doesn't work as a default assumption for the game.
Think of your favorite video game that's lots of fun, but too easy. Now think of a self-imposed challenge that makes the game more fun.Now imagine if that self-imposed challenge weren't self-imposed--if it were hard-coded into the game.That's, basica
No-one is against creative tools or to do creative things, assuming that people is not seeing the creative side of the fighter, it’s assuming that they don’t role play; what it implies is that creativeness and improvisation are also subjective to the DM’s criteria, let’s put an example: as a caster I want to throw a ball of fire that surrounds my enemies in flames and fire, now in the play test can be called burning hands and later surely it would be called fire ball, as martial class waving a two handed weapon I want to run stick my weapon to the ground, lean on it, kick my foe and with the impulse free my weapon and attack another enemy, nice movement full of improvisation, but it depends on DM’s judgment, now in the playtest there’s no rule that give the DM any clue if it’s possible or not, and second if there are rules for some of the movements it’s up to the DM to allow it or not, so as a martial class you depend on DM, but as a caster you depend on rules well written on a book.
Where is the equanimity of criteria here? Why spell caster’s improvisation has a chapter on his own called spells, and martial classes has to relay on Dm’s criteria? Wouldn’t it be fairer if both type of classes spell and non spell casters have their own chapter of special abilities? I’m not talking to have each class its own powers like 4e, martial classes deserves martial special movements through study and practice, that way it also may support the Dm to create or to allow creativeness from player’s maneuvers or spells, as you may see the problem it’s not creativeness, it’s coherence instead, coherence of design, to give all kind of classes (now divided between spell and non spell casters or mundane and non mundane movements) meaningful choices or give them to all just basic rules on how to improvise the powers, once again I’m not telling go back to 4e, but instead learn from 4e and give the same importance in length and depth to all classes and kind of classes through the rule set.
No-one is against creative tools or to do creative things, assuming that people is not seeing the creative side of the fighter, it’s assuming that they don’t role play; what it implies is that creativeness and improvisation are also subje
I just got an epiphany after reading this yesterday. And I posted my thoughts on it here. To sum it up, there's no way to "win" on this topic. I want vanilla ice cream and you want chocolate ice cream. None of us are right or wrong and forcing me chocolate ice cream down my throat won't make me like it as much as I can't force you to eat vanilla. It's an argument you can't win. A new edition will not solve this, it will only create an even more fractured fan base. Read the article, I'm telling you, it's worth it and I don't care if the source is truly the type of person she claims to be, the content still stands.
From now on, I won't even post what I want from 5E; because some of the stuff I want in it is exactly what some people don't want in it. Trying to do a mix of it will not work.
Peace out.
P.S.: To all those 4E fans spitting on a sh*t load of games out there, I can only say that I hate this elitist attitude. If you think this kind of attitude is what brings people in the market, you are dead wrong. The RPG hobby is already a small world, ostrasizing people within that hobby is just plain wrong and self-defeating.
I just got an epiphany after reading this yesterday. And I posted my thoughts on it here. To sum it up, there's no way to "win" on this topic. I want vanilla ice cream and you want chocolate ice cream. None of us are right or wrong and forcing me cho
I just got an epiphany after reading this yesterday. And I posted my thoughts on it here. To sum it up, there's no way to "win" on this topic. I want vanilla ice cream and you want chocolate ice cream. None of us are right or wrong and forcing me chocolate ice cream down my throat won't make me like it as much as I can't force you to eat vanilla. It's an argument you can't win. A new edition will not solve this, it will only create an even more fractured fan base. Read the article, I'm telling you, it's worth it and I don't care if the source is truly the type of person she claims to be, the content still stands.
From now on, I won't even post what I want from 5E; because some of the stuff I want in it is exactly what some people don't want in it. Trying to do a mix of it will not work.
Peace out.
P.S.: To all those 4E fans spitting on a sh*t load of games out there, I can only say that I hate this elitist attitude. If you think this kind of attitude is what brings people in the market, you are dead wrong. The RPG hobby is already a small world, ostrasizing people within that hobby is just plain wrong and self-defeating.
Excuse me the attitude it's from every X edition fan spitting s**t on others, it happened when 3e came out and AD&D was left, the same thing happened when 3.5 jump in the air and the same thing happened when 4e came out, and now we have at least 3 fan base edition grognards throwing whatever they have in hand in order to make this new edition as identical as it could be to the edition they love, any other direction is a step back or some insult like that game is a MMO or you are to oldie to understand, etc; your opinion doesn't help at all, the fault is from all fans, we should left behind all the traditions and see this new edition as a whole, sadly it won't happen because there's a lot of people acting like the end of the world is coming if they don't have what they want... For me neither AD&D, 3E nor 4E give all that I want for this game, but I enjoy all of them, D&D it's not about the system, it's about the histories you can have like an epic hero in an epic world with epic histories, and if this new edition goes back to things I didn't like it's up to anyone to keep on playing remember the D&D world won't die because new rules come up... you can still play those histories in whatever edition you want, D&D next tried to give us the option to improve, to be part of the change, but we have lost ourselves in banal war edition once again, to all fans you can role play in either game, either system...
Excuse me the attitude it's from every X edition fan spitting s**t on others, it happened when 3e came out and AD&D was left, the same thing happened when 3.5 jump in the air and the same thing happened when 4e came out, and now we have at least 3 fa
Excuse me the attitude it's from every X edition fan spitting s**t on others, it happened when 3e came out and AD&D was left, the same thing happened when 3.5 jump in the air and the same thing happened when 4e came out, and now we have at least 3 fan base edition grognards throwing whatever they have in hand in order to make this new edition as identical as it could be to the edition they love, any other direction is a step back or some insult like that game is a MMO or you are to oldie to understand, etc; your opinion doesn't help at all, the fault is from all fans, we should left behind all the traditions and see this new edition as a whole, sadly it won't happen because there's a lot of people acting like the end of the world is coming if they don't have what they want... For me neither AD&D, 3E nor 4E give all that I want for this game, but I enjoy all of them, D&D it's not about the system, it's about the histories you can have like an epic hero in an epic world with epic histories, and if this new edition goes back to things I didn't like it's up to anyone to keep on playing remember the D&D world won't die because new rules come up... you can still play those histories in whatever edition you want, D&D next tried to give us the option to improve, to be part of the change, but we have lost ourselves in banal war edition once again, to all fans you can role play in either game, either system...
Some post are edition wars, but not all of them. But of course people will want to point concepts existing in some editions. It help illustrate the point.
One list word that should be remembered from this post :
Improvisation should be codified and a core part of the system
Every class should come with many options
Modulation is important because no one wants the same things
Some post are edition wars, but not all of them. But of course people will want to point concepts existing in some editions. It help illustrate the point. One list word that should be remembered from this post : Improvisation should be codified and
Some post are edition wars, but not all of them. But of course people will want to point concepts existing in some editions. It help illustrate the point.
One list word that should be remembered from this post :
Improvisation should be codified and a core part of the system
Every class should come with many options
Modulation is important because no one wants the same things
I do agree mostly but I would like to add one more thing:
Every class should come with options, but options not necessarily have to have the same structure.
There’s no problem when concepts are given, the problem begins when those concepts are misinterpreted, anyway what I tried to explain it's not only people from 4e fan base, but people from all edition fan base, sadly because we are playing the same game and independent of the system we all make the world of D&D breath.
I do agree mostly but I would like to add one more thing: Every class should come with options, but options not necessarily have to have the same structure. There’s no problem when concepts are given, the problem begins when those concepts are
I just got an epiphany after reading this yesterday. And I posted my thoughts on it here. To sum it up, there's no way to "win" on this topic. I want vanilla ice cream and you want chocolate ice cream. None of us are right or wrong and forcing me chocolate ice cream down my throat won't make me like it as much as I can't force you to eat vanilla. It's an argument you can't win. A new edition will not solve this, it will only create an even more fractured fan base. Read the article, I'm telling you, it's worth it and I don't care if the source is truly the type of person she claims to be, the content still stands.
From now on, I won't even post what I want from 5E; because some of the stuff I want in it is exactly what some people don't want in it. Trying to do a mix of it will not work.
Peace out.
P.S.: To all those 4E fans spitting on a sh*t load of games out there, I can only say that I hate this elitist attitude. If you think this kind of attitude is what brings people in the market, you are dead wrong. The RPG hobby is already a small world, ostrasizing people within that hobby is just plain wrong and self-defeating.
In all sincerity I think the person making that post doesn't understand the RPG industry well enough to make intelligent decisions. He/She may well be a very capable business person, but you have to understand the gaming business. There are some reasonable observations in there, but you can garner the same observations (and a MUCH MUCH more savvy analysis of the issues) by reading some Ryan Dancy blog posts over at Enworld for instance. Indeed, players get attached to certain editions and version rolls fragment the customer base. No doubt backlash exists too, that's clear.
However, the economics of small print-run POD textbooks is a lot different from mass market products. Textbooks are also hugely different in having a distribution and sales channel, schools. In fact the market dynamics could hardly be different. A company like WotC's main challenge is getting people to even know about their product and get interested in it. This requires a place for those products, on store shelves. Trying to sell 5 or 6 different versions of D&D on store shelves clearly won't work. The poster's entire scheme probably wouldn't work at all. Making official PDFs of old editions and maybe selling them via POD to the very niche market of old editions fans could be a reasonable concept, but there's no way WotC has the resources to publish and support 5 different almost-identical RPGs in any big way. It just won't work.
The elitist thing, it goes both ways. I wasn't the one that cast the first stone. In fact when I showed up on this forum in 2008 to ask questions about 4e and talk to some other D&Ders it was like entering some kind of bad neighborhood, bam I was mugged on day one by some h4ter. Respect is a two-way street is all (not that I think you're really offending me or anything). When I stop seeing all the BS about 4e being an MMO/skirmish game/crap/failure/blah/blah/blah I'll feel a lot less like playing verbal sparring match with the people doing that. I'd venture to guess that many of us might even feel somewhat more sympathetic to the desires of players that have different tastes than ours. MUTUAL respect.
In all sincerity I think the person making that post doesn't understand the RPG industry well enough to make intelligent decisions. He/She may well be a very capable business person, but you have to understand the gaming business. There are some reas
That...would rule. Well stated, sir. Agree on all points. Furthermore, I bet yer a 4e fan, aren't you? And I'm an old-schooler. Huh. Mix and match COULD work.
>.>
Seriously...it's clear we all love our games.
I love Nethack. Fred loves WoW. We're gamers. The end.
That...would rule. Well stated, sir. Agree on all points. Furthermore, I bet yer a 4e fan, aren't you? And I'm an old-schooler. Huh. Mix and match COULD work.>.>Seriously...it's clear we all love our games.I love Nethack. Fred loves WoW. We're gamers
Every class should come with options, but options not necessarily have to have the same structure.
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG
Improvisation should be a part of the core system.
Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure.
The system should be modular so every aspect is easy to replace or ignore.
The core must be rigid well balanced and style of play should keep their focus on their particular goal. (A fighter should get the upper hand in a fight, Rogue should be unmatched with skills etc etc.)
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG Improvisation should be a part of the core system. Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure. The system should be mo
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG
Improvisation should be a part of the core system.
Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure.
The system should be modular so every aspect is easy to replace or ignore.
The core must be rigid well balanced and style of play should keep their focus on their particular goal. (A fighter should get the upper hand in a fight, Rogue should be unmatched with skills etc etc.)
I'm with you now in everything, so now how are we suppose to propagate this conclusions and convince in one hand players and in the other wizard of the coast to try to redirect DnD Next towards this conclusions?
With talking not arguing conclusions come along...
I'm with you now in everything, so now how are we suppose to propagate this conclusions and convince in one hand players and in the other wizard of the coast to try to redirect DnD Next towards this conclusions?With talking not arguing conclusions co
That...would rule. Well stated, sir. Agree on all points. Furthermore, I bet yer a 4e fan, aren't you? And I'm an old-schooler. Huh. Mix and match COULD work.
>.>
Seriously...it's clear we all love our games.
I love Nethack. Fred loves WoW. We're gamers. The end.
Oh, yeah, I like 4e. I liked all the different editions of D&D that I have played, in their time, which is most of them. Really, mostly people are reasonable cool. We wrangle about details of what we like, but we could all sit down and play together, no problem.
I think 5e has some nice stuff in it so far. Definitely can see being happy with the combat system for instance. Maybe a few other things don't quite tickle my fancy quite as much, but it has plenty of promise. I can certainly see how it can satisfy people's liking for more AD&D-like play. I'll be happy that's in there, though I think we'd probably play a style more intermediate between that and 4e.
Ideally I'd be perfectly happy with AEDU-like classes working on a streamlined core with 20 levels. That feels a lot like it would be about where I think 4e should go. Couple variations on healing/hit points/etc and available options for classes really shouldn't be TOO hard to engineer. There's going to be some stuff I might not use, but really who can say for sure? People should always try stuff and play around with it. A lot of times there's plenty of good even in things you don't like as much. Certainly a lot of D&D products I've cannibalized or used for inspiration that weren't my favorites. Definitely think the more extreme positions on all sides are a bit much.
That...would rule. Well stated, sir. Agree on all points. Furthermore, I bet yer a 4e fan, aren't you? And I'm an old-schooler. Huh. Mix and match COULD work.>.>Seriously...it's clear we all love our games.I love Nethack. Fred loves WoW. We're gamers
I'm with you now in everything, so now how are we suppose to propagate this conclusions and convince in one hand players and in the other wizard of the coast to try to redirect DnD Next towards this conclusions?
With talking not arguing conclusions come along...
We need now to hope that the popular discution topics are heard by WotC, what I will do in the next survey is sending them this bullet list (they ask for comments and recommandation) and maybe a link to the post. If enough testers are doing this. They will listen I am sure. I would recomend you to do the same.
Edit : I'll start a topic with this bullet list and see what we can add to it! The list.
We need now to hope that the popular discution topics are heard by WotC, what I will do in the next survey is sending them this bullet list (they ask for comments and recommandation) and maybe a link to the post. If enough testers are doing this. The
Every class should come with options, but options not necessarily have to have the same structure.
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG
Improvisation should be a part of the core system.
Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure.
The system should be modular so every aspect is easy to replace or ignore.
The core must be rigid well balanced and style of play should keep their focus on their particular goal. (A fighter should get the upper hand in a fight, Rogue should be unmatched with skills etc etc.)
I think the thing is, not all of these are specifically things that everyone will agree with. It may surprise you, but IMHO I see no reason why all rogues (or only rogues) should be general skill monkeys. I can QUITE easily see rogues that are stealthy combat experts, focused safe crackers, or feckless conmen with no other really useful skills. I can also see where you could have a fighter that is a historian or a minor court official, or a dockside thug and might have quite considerable and broad skills. I think it is reasonable to say that if you're going to be the toughest possible guy in a fight, which is probably at least mostly a fighter concept, then the skillful rogue that is only handy with a dagger in a pinch probably will outclass you in something, maybe skills. So the absolute range of possibilities is going to vary from one class to another, but for a given character he can probably get to be best in the party at any specific thing regardless of class unless someone else focuses on that too.
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG Improvisation should be a part of the core system. Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure. The system should be mo
As far as he goes, I think the "simple" fighter needs the following:
1.) 2 different "basic" attacks. One does small damage on a miss, one allows temp DR or a push or something). 2.) the ability to charge. Nobody else can - but the fighter is the best at combat. He can move his speed then use his action to charge. Minimum 10ft move and a basic attack with a Crit range of 19-20. No damage on a miss or anything. -1 AC until next round. 3.) no disadvantage when firing a ranged attack into melee. The fighter is simply better at fighting. He can ignore distractions that others cannot. He can time his shots better.
This would make the simple/basic fighter more interesting to me.
I'd feel much less gypped.
As far as he goes, I think the "simple" fighter needs the following:1.) 2 different "basic" attacks. One does small damage on a miss, one allows temp DR or a push or something). 2.) the ability to charge. Nobody else can - but the fighter is the best
Every class should come with options, but options not necessarily have to have the same structure.
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG
Improvisation should be a part of the core system.
Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure.
The system should be modular so every aspect is easy to replace or ignore.
The core must be rigid well balanced and style of play should keep their focus on their particular goal. (A fighter should get the upper hand in a fight, Rogue should be unmatched with skills etc etc.)
I think the thing is, not all of these are specifically things that everyone will agree with. It may surprise you, but IMHO I see no reason why all rogues (or only rogues) should be general skill monkeys. I can QUITE easily see rogues that are stealthy combat experts, focused safe crackers, or feckless conmen with no other really useful skills. I can also see where you could have a fighter that is a historian or a minor court official, or a dockside thug and might have quite considerable and broad skills. I think it is reasonable to say that if you're going to be the toughest possible guy in a fight, which is probably at least mostly a fighter concept, then the skillful rogue that is only handy with a dagger in a pinch probably will outclass you in something, maybe skills. So the absolute range of possibilities is going to vary from one class to another, but for a given character he can probably get to be best in the party at any specific thing regardless of class unless someone else focuses on that too.
It may also surprise you, but I agree with you at 100 %. Theses are exemples of the goals that WoTC set for classes design. And one thing is true, classes should focus on goals. I do not by any means want to imply what thoses goals should be, but the point you bring is excellent. How could we reformulate? So it fit in a bullet, I openned a topic exactly for this kind of well tought comment. Your contribution in the topic The list would be very appreciated.
Lets bring it down to thoses important points on RPG Improvisation should be a part of the core system. Every aspect and style of play (classes) shoul be well detailed (options) without necessarilly having the same structure. The system should be mo
Odd. One of my players at the playtest last night tried to the called shots....every....single...time he attacked. I agreed if he hit a called shot, I would give him a crit.
Yes, I gave him a penalty when he "Aimed for the eyes". Every time he failed to hit.(But still did 3 damage from slayer)
While I agree the fighter needs more, giving auto-hit called shots, like suggested in the OP, doesn't work. If you did have it, then other characters should be able to use it. Including Wizards, which means Magic Missle to the eyes, every...single...monster.
The concept is nice, but in practice it doesn't work.
Odd. One of my players at the playtest last night tried to the called shots....every....single...time he attacked. I agreed if he hit a called shot, I would give him a crit.Yes, I gave him a penalty when he "Aimed for the eyes". Every time he failed
Of course the current Fighter "class" is boring - it consists, in toto, of "+2 damage".
Almost all of the "But it isn't boring, because..." stuff that people have brought up... have nothing to do with the class. In theory, you could have a character with no class, or something like 3e's Commoner NPC class, and hey, "it isn't boring, because..." the exact same stuff.
No, the Fighter +2 Damage "class" is just bad. It needs more. I don't think "have an extra theme!" is an appropriate solution, because (a) we've already had that - it's called 3.5; (b) given the nature of themes, this will create a "Bard-lite", not a Fighter.
Of course the current Fighter "class" is boring - it consists, in toto, of "+2 damage".Almost all of the "But it isn't boring, because..." stuff that people have brought up... have nothing to do with the class. In theory, you could have a character
Odd. One of my players at the playtest last night tried to the called shots....every....single...time he attacked. I agreed if he hit a called shot, I would give him a crit.
Yes, I gave him a penalty when he "Aimed for the eyes". Every time he failed to hit.(But still did 3 damage from slayer)
While I agree the fighter needs more, giving auto-hit called shots, like suggested in the OP, doesn't work. If you did have it, then other characters should be able to use it. Including Wizards, which means Magic Missle to the eyes, every...single...monster.
The concept is nice, but in practice it doesn't work.
Just be aware that when you talk about called shots, you should use rules for it. Its nothing like that.
In 2E where this came from, there was a penalty tabble, so based on what you would try to hit you would get a penalty, and in case of success you would deal more damage or impose some kind of limitation, like being slow, or fall prone, or became imobilized acording to what happend. The penalties where something like that, if I can recall: -2 for arms or legs, -4 for hands, knees or articulations,-8 for the head, no such thing as "eye shot". Most pcs without a decent Thac0 number would avoid that penalty most of the time, not tring blow that are too dificult, like head shots. If you are lucky enough you can aim for an articulation or something like that. You would mostly try it as you are a hig level pc against clearly weaker oponents. For example, To a high lvl fighter, when facing a low level orc, the -8 penalty is canceled by its low Thac0 number (equls a hig BAB). So he Could go directly to the head shot, and cutt the orc's head right away. In a mather of fact it was something like, you get better as you advance in level, that type of thing. So... Those rules aren't perfect att all, but there where rules. Its no such thing as "using it every single round" because of the limitations imposed by such shots.
Just be aware that when you talk about called shots, you should use rules for it. Its nothing like that. In 2E where this came from, there was a penalty tabble, so based on what you would try to hit you would get a penalty, and in case of success you
No need for fancy rules, just a save or be stun for some rounds. Depending mostly on the size of the nuts Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.
Special maneuvers are just standardized rules for how you try and what happens if you succeed. It's no more spell-like than a Rogue's Sneak Attack. Having it on the character sheet is good design because it helps players with poor memories and prevents time-consuming flipping thru books.
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Save or be stunned is a fancy rule. So is figuring out how long an enemy is knocked down, or how far you can push them if you try to tackle them. So the fancy rules are going to be there, or you have a huge problem with consistency and balance.Specia
As far as he goes, I think the "simple" fighter needs the following: 1.) 2 different "basic" attacks. One does small damage on a miss, one allows temp DR or a push or something). 2.) the ability to charge. Nobody else can - but the fighter is the best at combat. He can move his speed then use his action to charge. Minimum 10ft move and a basic attack with a Crit range of 19-20. No damage on a miss or anything. -1 AC until next round. 3.) no disadvantage when firing a ranged attack into melee. The fighter is simply better at fighting. He can ignore distractions that others cannot. He can time his shots better. This would make the simple/basic fighter more interesting to me. I'd feel much less gypped.
Hey, you just threw up three off-the-cuff ideas, and came up with a fighter that's a lot better than the "Hurr, I are a sack of HPs dat duz damage!" Fighter +2 Damage Class. Well done.
Hey, you just threw up three off-the-cuff ideas, and came up with a fighter that's a lot better than the "Hurr, I are a sack of HPs dat duz damage!" Fighter +2 Damage Class. Well done.
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the cleric i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the clerici think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf through the rule book.
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf throug
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf through the rule book.
If this is the case, do you also believe Wizards should be restricted in their spells to only what fits on a character sheet? Or is it okay for them to reference the book for every spell they need to cast, while Fighters need to be limited to what can fit on their sheet?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf throug
Why have books at all, then, if everything should be right there on the sheet? Pretty soon, each of my character sheets--I have a bunch--is going to become its own booklet, and finding anything on it is going to take six or eight minutes, necessitating a short-sheet for my character booklet, except that the design philosophy in play is that my quickie-reference needs to have all the information I'll ever need, so the short-sheet starts getting longer and longer, and soon I need a cheat sheet for the short-sheet for the character sheet! Where does it end?
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf through the rule book.
If this is the case, do you also believe Wizards should be restricted in their spells to only what fits on a character sheet? Or is it okay for them to reference the book for every spell they need to cast, while Fighters need to be limited to what can fit on their sheet?
Isn't it usually the case that the Wizard's character sheet is their spellbook?
And no, I don't think Fighters need to be limited to their sheet, but I think they should have a foundation to work off of.
Obviously, there's a sweet spot, but that doesn't change the fact that having defined rules for common "called shots"/maneuvers is important, and in general, it's a good idea for players to have info in front of them so they don't have to leaf throug
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the cleric i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
Maneuvers and powers are the same thing. It's just changing a word. You could call it fluffy bunny feet, and it is the same concept. Getting technical, though. Martial classes have Exploits in 4e.
Maneuvers and powers are the same thing. It's just changing a word. You could call it fluffy bunny feet, and it is the same concept. Getting technical, though. Martial classes have Exploits in 4e.
Statements like this give me a headache. After so many years of hearing people say "I didn’t like 4e's power system," it has made me start to wonder if they felt that way because they are actually literalists. They saw a vocabulary word—power—used to describe a combat action with a kicker, and somehow got to “only superheroes have powers, why are there superheroes in D&D?”
It’s like being confused that you took damage on a miss, when they’re specifically called HIT points.
Characters didn’t have powers like Superman has powers. It was a catch-all vocabulary word for certain kinds of actions. For some reason, this confused the heck out of a lot of people.
Statements like this give me a headache. After so many years of hearing people say "I didn’t like 4e's power system," it has made me start to wonder if they felt that way because they are actually literalists. They saw a vocabulary word—p
my player have fun with the fighter, every time he atacks he debribe in a diferent way, and run a lot to help me wizard and the cleric i think is fun have manouvers, but not powers.
A maneuver IS a power. With a different name. That's literally what almost every 4E "power" for a fighter was. A simple maneuver that you'd likely see in combat. Same with their stances, which pushed you into a "I am specializing in this maneuver" mode for a while.
Does it really come down to the name? And the fact that all powers are easier to read when they are presented in the same basic manner? Is that really, truly, what all the fuss from the folks who prefer older editions really is?
Even the feats and whatnot that add to basic maneuvers anyone can attempt are really just powers in disguise. When you tack on that extra ability or numerical bonus to a trip, for example, you're just making that maneuver into a more unique power for your character. Being able to present that power as a single, neatly laid out power is much better than trying to refer to a bunch of disparate feats and features when you want to use a special maneuver.
A maneuver IS a power. With a different name. That's literally what almost every 4E "power" for a fighter was. A simple maneuver that you'd likely see in combat. Same with their stances, which pushed you into a "I am specializing in this maneuver" mo
For an attacking spell, it's more than enough. What is a fireball, a big magic missile that strike multiple foes. Wait a minute we also have chain lightning... a magic missile that strike foes who are next to another... And hmmm we also have cone of cold... a magic missile that strikes a strange pattern in front of you...
I can't tell if you're being serious. If you are, then let me ask you:
What is Whirlwind Attack, a big basic attack that strikes multiple foes. Yet fighters don't get that in the core rules because it's too much like a spell. What is Ricochet Shot, a ranged basic attack that strikes foes that are next to one another. Yet fighters don't get that in the core rules because it's too much like a spell. My point is, Wizards are given codified special attacks in the rules where Fighters must ask permission to achieve similar effects.
What is a Basic Attack, but a Magic Missile with no range that you have to roll to hit? Wow, that version of Magic Missle kinda stinks.
I can't tell if you're being serious. If you are, then let me ask you:What is Whirlwind Attack, a big basic attack that strikes multiple foes. Yet fighters don't get that in the core rules because it's too much like a spell. What is Ricochet Shot, a
Sorry, I think you just misunderstood me, or I am explaining badly haha. I just think that called shoots is all a fighter need, not special manoeuvers written on the sheets like spells. But a lot of people seems to disagree and think the fighter is boring. But I don't think so.
