|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:29PM
#101
|
|
|
A little late in the discussion, but I despise weapon category abilities, feats, and fighting styles because I often times get the shaft(pun intended) when choosing a polearm. I often times see other weapon groups get all sorts of neat toys to play with, and I do not. If I do get toys, I generally get a beat up ragdoll that's tearing at the seams. Polearm Gamble had nearly impossible to meet stat requirements in 4e, unless you built your character around that feat specifically, which almost gave you threatening reach, which monsters got by default. If I remember correctly, there were no options for polearm based fighting styles in 3e. That, and a lot of wording throughtout the last couple of editions usually makes it so effects and abilities only apply to adjacent foes or within a five foot reach, making my beloved polearm worthless.
Save the polearms.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:35PM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
A little late in the discussion, but I despise weapon category abilities, feats, and fighting styles because I often times get the shaft(pun intended) when choosing a polearm. I often times see other weapon groups get all sorts of neat toys to play with, and I do not. If I do get toys, I generally get a beat up ragdoll that's tearing at the seams. Polearm Gamble had nearly impossible to meet stat requirements in 4e, unless you built your character around that feat specifically, which almost gave you threatening reach, which monsters got by default. If I remember correctly, there were no options for polearm based fighting styles in 3e. That, and a lot of wording throughtout the last couple of editions usually makes it so effects and abilities only apply to adjacent foes or within a five foot reach, making my beloved polearm worthless.
Save the polearms.
Myself and Balsa, Odin and CuCulaine are all rooting alongside you. (well they are all spear users).
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:37PM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
before 4th, most of these classes just "I do an attack" and 4ed had their at wills. This is better then both in my opinion, it gives martial charachters these dice to craft combos. It's exciting.
BTW- had this idea for monk manuever (supposed to reflect the Tai chi style of use combat against itslelf or others)
Like water - When a monk is hit by a melee attack, he can spend XD to redirect the force of the enemy's attack into another enemy. When a monk is hit and takes damage, he may roll any # of XD. If the number he rolls is higher then the damage the monk took, then apply the damage to any enemy targey within 5 feet also.
Heh Using One Against the Other is I think a cross class action hero ability.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:44PM
#104
|
|
|
A little late in the discussion, but I despise weapon category abilities, feats, and fighting styles because I often times get the shaft(pun intended) when choosing a polearm. I often times see other weapon groups get all sorts of neat toys to play with, and I do not. If I do get toys, I generally get a beat up ragdoll that's tearing at the seams. Polearm Gamble had nearly impossible to meet stat requirements in 4e, unless you built your character around that feat specifically, which almost gave you threatening reach, which monsters got by default. If I remember correctly, there were no options for polearm based fighting styles in 3e. That, and a lot of wording throughtout the last couple of editions usually makes it so effects and abilities only apply to adjacent foes or within a five foot reach, making my beloved polearm worthless.
Save the polearms.
Myself and Balsa, Odin and CuCulaine are all rooting alongside you. (well they are all spear users).
Just make sure we're in a tight formation when doing so. The Japanese didn't pick up on that until the Mongols invaded.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:45PM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
A little late in the discussion, but I despise weapon category abilities, feats, and fighting styles because I often times get the shaft(pun intended) when choosing a polearm. I often times see other weapon groups get all sorts of neat toys to play with, and I do not. If I do get toys, I generally get a beat up ragdoll that's tearing at the seams. Polearm Gamble had nearly impossible to meet stat requirements in 4e, unless you built your character around that feat specifically, which almost gave you threatening reach, which monsters got by default. If I remember correctly, there were no options for polearm based fighting styles in 3e. That, and a lot of wording throughtout the last couple of editions usually makes it so effects and abilities only apply to adjacent foes or within a five foot reach, making my beloved polearm worthless.
Save the polearms.
Would something like this be acceptable?
========================================================Level 1: Weapon Superiority
You know how to wield a massive variety of weapons, but your training also allows you to exploit the strengths of each specific weapon in a manner others simply cannot.
Benefit: When you use a weapon of the listed type, and spend at least one expertise die on its associated maneuver, add one bonus die to the number you spend on that maneuver. Some maneuvers are not considered associated (and thus do not provide the bonus die) unless used with a specific action, noted below.
Axe - Cleave
Bow - Volley
Crossbow - Precise Shot
Dagger - Composed Attack
Flail - Whirlwind Attack
Hammer - Mighty Exertion (when used with Knock Down)
Mace - Mighty Exertion (when used with Knock Down)*
Pick - Opportunist (I really don't know for this one)
Shield (as weapon) - Mighty Exertion (when used with Push)
Sling - Precise Shot*
Spear - Spring Attack
Staff - Whirlwind Attack*
Sword - Glancing Blow
Unarmed - Mighty Exertion (when used with Disarm)
Whip -Mighty Exertion (when used with Disarm)*
========================================================
(* still denotes duplicated maneuvers; this could easily be adjusted when we have more maneuvers available)
This would require that all maneuvers make use of multiple dice being spent, in some fashion (Spring Attack would need a change, for example).
It doesn't care about whether or not your weapon is a polearm or not - 5e doens't treat that as a weapon group, at the moment - and doesn't actually require you to "specialize".
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:50PM
#106
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
to me the fighter has always been a weapon master.
And many types of weapons have advantaged in rl and older edition that we don't see returning in this edition so far.
my sugestion for the fighter there should be a manuver per weapon group (swords, axes,polearms etc)
you can chose to take one of these manuvers instead of the standard manuvers that come with your fighting style.
to show that the fighter is sombody who knows how to use a weapon to it's full advantage this would replace weapon specialisation of older editions.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:53PM
#107
|
|
|
A little late in the discussion, but I despise weapon category abilities, feats, and fighting styles because I often times get the shaft(pun intended) when choosing a polearm. I often times see other weapon groups get all sorts of neat toys to play with, and I do not. If I do get toys, I generally get a beat up ragdoll that's tearing at the seams. Polearm Gamble had nearly impossible to meet stat requirements in 4e, unless you built your character around that feat specifically, which almost gave you threatening reach, which monsters got by default. If I remember correctly, there were no options for polearm based fighting styles in 3e. That, and a lot of wording throughtout the last couple of editions usually makes it so effects and abilities only apply to adjacent foes or within a five foot reach, making my beloved polearm worthless.
Save the polearms.
I am with you on this. It was ridiculous you had to be a fighter and have 15 dex and 15 wis. Good news was that mean you met the pre-req for pretty much every other martial feat...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 12:56PM
#108
|
|
|
A little late in the discussion, but I despise weapon category abilities, feats, and fighting styles because I often times get the shaft(pun intended) when choosing a polearm. I often times see other weapon groups get all sorts of neat toys to play with, and I do not. If I do get toys, I generally get a beat up ragdoll that's tearing at the seams. Polearm Gamble had nearly impossible to meet stat requirements in 4e, unless you built your character around that feat specifically, which almost gave you threatening reach, which monsters got by default. If I remember correctly, there were no options for polearm based fighting styles in 3e. That, and a lot of wording throughtout the last couple of editions usually makes it so effects and abilities only apply to adjacent foes or within a five foot reach, making my beloved polearm worthless.
Save the polearms.
Would something like this be acceptable?
========================================================Level 1: Weapon Superiority
You know how to wield a massive variety of weapons, but your training also allows you to exploit the strengths of each specific weapon in a manner others simply cannot.
Benefit: When you use a weapon of the listed type, and spend at least one expertise die on its associated maneuver, add one bonus die to the number you spend on that maneuver. Some maneuvers are not considered associated (and thus do not provide the bonus die) unless used with a specific action, noted below.
Axe - Cleave
Bow - Volley
Crossbow - Precise Shot
Dagger - Composed Attack
Flail - Whirlwind Attack
Hammer - Mighty Exertion (when used with Knock Down)
Mace - Mighty Exertion (when used with Knock Down)*
Pick - Opportunist (I really don't know for this one)
Shield (as weapon) - Mighty Exertion (when used with Push)
Sling - Precise Shot*
Spear - Spring Attack
Staff - Whirlwind Attack*
Sword - Glancing Blow
Unarmed - Mighty Exertion (when used with Disarm)
Whip -Mighty Exertion (when used with Disarm)*
========================================================
(* still denotes duplicated maneuvers; this could easily be adjusted when we have more maneuvers available)
This would require that all maneuvers make use of multiple dice being spent, in some fashion (Spring Attack would need a change, for example).
It doesn't care about whether or not your weapon is a polearm or not - 5e doens't treat that as a weapon group, at the moment - and doesn't actually require you to "specialize".
Nothing about that comes off as offensive, no. My only concern is that it's still related to the Maneuver and Expertise system, which I personally feel is getting a little old. At this point, three classes utilize that system, and I don't think another Expertise related system will make the fighter actually feel unique in any way. I do like how this looks, however, and I will say that this would make an excellent character option. I will say that I would find it a little more appealing if WoTC would change the Glaive to a sword type weapon rather than spear. The only options for polearms in this case are axe, hammer, and spear.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 6:31PM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I'm not buying the whole "class identity" thing either. Sounds too "progressive". What does it really mean, anyway? That characters coming from it are "unique, special snowflakes". Yep, sounds progressive... 
Look, my character's identity doesn't come from his class. It comes from me, how I describe him, and how I play him.
Whether you buy it or not, it was one of the rationales for ganking 4e and moving 5e up in the schedule half a decade. 4e's common AEDU structure made classes too much 'alike,' so part of the point of 5e was to give every class some unique mechanics to give that all-important "class identity" that you don't buy. They each have to be their own special snowflakes and have their own inviolable niche protection.
Except the fighter.
I thought the goal was to make wizards and cleric special special snow flakes and everyone else based of AEDU while pretending its not AEDU.
Seems improbable. The wizard is the only class that has at-will, signature (encounter) and daily spells, and he gets to use spells as rituals (utilities). ED is nothing like AEDU, acronyms notwithstanding.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 16, 2012 - 6:38PM
#110
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
ED is nothing like AEDU, acronyms notwithstanding.
Yeah! There is no "ED" in "AEDU"!
|
|
|
