|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:25AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
In the last google+ hangout they discussed the possibility of allowing extra attacks. The suggestion was to a) change Martial Damage Dice; rather than a pool of dice you add to the attack, the weapon does 1W, 2W, 3W, etc. depending upon your level and then b) if you have multiple [W], you can split them into multiple attacks - but you can only make one attack per target. I.e. if your level gives you 2W damage on your attack, you can attack one target for 2W or two targets for 1W each.
When or If this shows up in a packet remains to be seen.
Carl
Yeah I guess but that just kind of feels like half-assed bonus attacks that aren't really attacks, especially if they try to place all the bonuses on the first target again. If we're gonna have an extra attack then it needs to be an actual proper attack that we roll proper damage for and mod it like we would any other normal attack.
I think any multi attack scenario should involve splitting your mods between the attacks.. it doesnt make any sense to get all your strength on every attack.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:49AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I think any multi attack scenario should involve splitting your mods between the attacks.. it doesnt make any sense to get all your strength on every attack.
I wasn't a fan of 3e's iterative attack rolls but I'm finding the damage hit even less appealing. I hate it in 4e, this is a little better for the most part but I still don't like it.
I think I just want my attacks to be weapon based, so I want my longsword to do longsword damage all the time and if my strength bonus wanes 'cause I'm spreading my personal energy across more things then fine. It's just what makes sense to my brain. I hate to think of anything as a deal breaker but the way they've been handling extra attacks is starting to feel that way - provided I can't easily mod around it. edit: Starting to derail... sorry, I'll shut up
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:54AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Barbarian rage and bash. What more could you ask for?
Just be lucky that barbarians got these little abilities to help along the way.
Yeah, barbarian is a simple boring class concept.
It's just "HULK SMASH"
Really rage should just be a feat and the class should merge with fighter.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:41AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
At the moment I think the 5e barbarian is missing nature based powers. He is more like a fighter with a breserker theme. I agree with others here, at the very least he needs some default survival based skills.
btw, does anyone remember the Viking Breserker subclass from 2e? At 4th he could shapchange into a wolf, at 7th into a cave bear, and at 12th he can shape-travel into a spirit animal.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:47AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I can't help but notice that every barbarian has the same features with no in class decision points. I mean Ok yeah they just intro'd the class, but I think some level of variation between barbarians should be possible.
They told you, clearly, and directly, that the first introduction of the barbarian wouldn't have any options, but that a later packet will add more.
Seriously, do you people not pay attention?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:51AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.
the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up quickly.
Both in generating the character and when it comes to choices in game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:56AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.
the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up quickly.
Both in generating the character and when it comes to choices in game.
Except that what we have now isn't even remotely close to representing the final product.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:11AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Early in the playtest process they talked of classes fiting into 3 groups common, uncommon, rare, often refered to as simple advanced and expert.
the barbarian to me looks like a very nice class for the simple group, something a new player can pick up quickly.
Both in generating the character and when it comes to choices in game.
Except that what we have now isn't even remotely close to representing the final product.
wat i was trying to say is that even in the finished books we might see some characters that might seem kind of bland to players already experiances in other editions.
but are there just so you have a easy to play character you can let a person trying to game for the first time play he joins a group of players that are more experianced.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:51AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I think any multi attack scenario should involve splitting your mods between the attacks.. it doesnt make any sense to get all your strength on every attack.
I wasn't a fan of 3e's iterative attack rolls but I'm finding the damage hit even less appealing. I hate it in 4e, this is a little better for the most part but I still don't like it.
I think I just want my attacks to be weapon based, so I want my longsword to do longsword damage all the time and if my strength bonus wanes 'cause I'm spreading my personal energy across more things then fine.
It's just what makes sense to my brain. I hate to think of anything as a deal breaker but the way they've been handling extra attacks is starting to feel that way - provided I can't easily mod around it.
edit: Starting to derail... sorry, I'll shut up
Sorry it makes more sense to me that the damage variation be mostly based on the users ability a person can be killed with from 5lbs (in 6 exposed placed) to 10lbs pressure (in probably a dozen).
Once something is a deadly weapon? Most of the variation is just in how well you can use it... and its style of uses.
So to me what might feel right would be every weapon doing exactly the same damage like it did in 0e.
Number obcession arent we funny... what is longsword damage.
|
|
|
