|
7 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 7:18PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
I would propose that at level 6 fighters and rogues get an advanced manuever or a stance. This could be an extra attack (for a simple attack fighter), damage resistance (for a tough fighter), marking (for a defender fighter), backstab (spike damage rogue), mobility (Bonus speed and AC for a rogue), evasion (old-school style for rogues), etc.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 8:32PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
I only ever made fighters with immediate actions, minor actions, and mutliattack powers in 4e. That allowed for 2-3 attacks a round for the entire fight during every encounter. Of course it was broken as hell to do and out damaged our strikers sometimes. I think 5e wizard damage could be toned down if fighter multi attacks are moved to maneuvers though.
So how would an extra attack as a maneuver work? And then how would you compensate those who just want to make two improvised attacks per round?
You've gotta have me on ignore or something because I already explained how it would work. For each die you expend you roll another attack, when you do this you don't get any bonuses to the damage of the attacks you make. Its not like its rocket science or anything.
I could literally churn out a book of maneuvers in like 2 hours. That makes me wonder about licensing?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 9:33PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Just as a point of clarification the extra attack is specifically an attack to my reading, so it can't be used to improvise, or improvise in the same round as an attack since you need to make an attack to get the second one.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 9:36PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
IMO, the only edition to take the fighter's extra attacks away was 4e. The other editions have set a precedent for fighters to have multiple attacks per round.
False -- or misleading at best. In 3.5, for example, all classes could make multiple attacks per round, though fighters gained access at an earlier level.
The ability to make more than two attacks per round was one of my (and my friends') biggest pet peeves with the 3.5 combat system. It slows down the game, and it's too easily abused.
I'd rather see Extra Attack as a maneuver in Next.
As I said, 3e, 2e, and 1e all gave the fighter several attacks per round. 4e took that away.
And a lot of people found the 4e Fighter much better than previous Fighters, since "Moar Attacks:The Class" isn't very appealing to a lot of people. Sure you do damage, but the class itself is boring and battle turns into a snorefest as you just go "Ok, I attack him and him again I guess, wake me up on my next turn."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 02, 2012 - 9:44PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Especially due to the scaling issues that rendered anythign but a series of or a heavily boosted crit nigh meaningless, and consider that most characters had to hope their target didn't move between turns in order to get those extra attacks.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 1:44AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Just for the record, the Fighter can make multiple attacks in 4e. You just don't have to have it by default. You choose it.
It's almost like it's... modular.
And how is that accomplished exactly? i never saw that option before, but then again I canceled my DDI account after 2 years of playing 4e.
By taking multi attack powers. Dual Strike, Rain of Blows, and lots of immediate action powers. Not to mention feats that grant you situational extra attacks.
The Tempest fighter is built around multi attacks.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 7:35AM
#57
|
|
|
Getting back to the op - the cs dice were a great idea because they allow a 5e fighter to emulate a 1e fighter, or do something more explicitly power based. The 2nd attack as written isn't as flexible. So, trading in cs dice for extra attacks (but getting more) allows for more flexibility. However, people like extra attacks so a lot of people would just trade their dice for more attacks. I'd recommend that 5e use the 4e damage rolling strat - if you roll multiple attacks, you only roll 1 damage. That'd cut down on how long it takes for the fighter to play his turn.
Btw, the more I think of this, the more I like it. Two weapon fighting isn't popular now, but if a fighter could trade cs dice for attacks, then he wouldn't need special two weapon fighting feats.
As for dmgorgins question - you'd just have to state "for a 1e feel, assume that you're always trading 2 dice for 1 extra attack".
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 8:12AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
I like having some things seperate from meanuevers. I'd be for at 6th level them getting a menauever and an extra attack. Or give the extra attack at level 5 or 7. Same for rogues give them a consistent stream of menauevers with some extra thrown in every 5ish levels.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 9:19AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
IMO, the only edition to take the fighter's extra attacks away was 4e. The other editions have set a precedent for fighters to have multiple attacks per round.
False -- or misleading at best. In 3.5, for example, all classes could make multiple attacks per round, though fighters gained access at an earlier level.
The ability to make more than two attacks per round was one of my (and my friends') biggest pet peeves with the 3.5 combat system. It slows down the game, and it's too easily abused.
I'd rather see Extra Attack as a maneuver in Next.
As I said, 3e, 2e, and 1e all gave the fighter several attacks per round. 4e took that away.
And a lot of people found the 4e Fighter much better than previous Fighters, since "Moar Attacks:The Class" isn't very appealing to a lot of people. Sure you do damage, but the class itself is boring and battle turns into a snorefest as you just go "Ok, I attack him and him again I guess, wake me up on my next turn."
I guess you just don't understand how the game in previous editions worked. I'll post that blurb from the 2e DMG again just for your sake, but do note that the focus was not on the mechanics. Your complaint about the snorefest is just not the way the game should be played.
"The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 9:23AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Just for the record, the Fighter can make multiple attacks in 4e. You just don't have to have it by default. You choose it.
It's almost like it's... modular.
And how is that accomplished exactly? i never saw that option before, but then again I canceled my DDI account after 2 years of playing 4e.
By taking multi attack powers. Dual Strike, Rain of Blows, and lots of immediate action powers. Not to mention feats that grant you situational extra attacks.
The Tempest fighter is built around multi attacks.
And what is the source and level of those powers? I don't have DDI anymore since I stoped playing 4e. Still a few powers from supplementary material or powers that are restricted to high level builds just don't provide the same benefit that multi-attacks in previous editions did. On top of that there really is no freedom in action, you're basically stuck doing exactly what the power prescribes all the time.
|
|
|
