|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 8:43PM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
The problem as it seems to me the more and more I look at it is MDD are inherently a bad system for the fighter. The thing is, the figther is meant to be a damage dealer, sacraficing the key role of the class for a bit of utlility is almost never a great idea. That's the problem, the resource management system of the fighter is directly tied to his damage in a huge way.
I think the best way to solve the fighter is no MDD as WD, or MDD even as damage, but to go back to Weapon dice for damage, switch MDD to Martial Points (or Die), reduce the amount and let the fighter use them without sacrificing damage. That way the fighter quite litterally may use a manouver every turn. This will make his choice, less of a if this one of the odd situations in which a manouver makes more sense then damage, and more into a question of how do I best allocate my points across manouvers.
Hell you could even have using a one handed weapon give you an extra Martial Point. By 20th level you would have fighters making awesome chain manouvers most turns.
This! THIS! This is EXACTLY what the Fighter needs as well as Maneuvers that scale/chain into something more impressive at higher levels.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 8:48PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2013
|
Some of them yes, lunge for example is never gonna get any better or worse on it's own, but combine lunge with whirlwind and boom You've amped up Whirlwind's versatility quite a bit.
You go from being able to hit any one within 1 square to anyone within 2 squares.
Spring-attack + whirlwind gives you that last surge of movement to get into or out of wherever you need to whirlwind.
Push + whirlwind is almost cool enough to make you think this is still 4e.
Do the maneuvers need tweaking and to scale better in a few cases? do we need more? Oh heck yeah to both. But we don't need god-maneuvers, just mix up the ones we got.
The problem isn't with what you can do with manouvers so much as to do it requires the fighter to sacrifice his efficiency at his main goal. Maximising damage means not performing a manouver, that is the issue. Hence why I propose we move to a points system, so it becomes not maximising damage at the cost of utility, but chooseing the best utility combination to use ontop of your damage.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:14PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
So instead of trading out MDD for Maneuvers, we just have a MDB and maneuver points?
While logical that seems dull.
Can we have the MDD still be in the form of dice? I like rolling a bunch of dice when I stick the pointy bits in people I don't like.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:19PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2013
|
Well that's where going back to multiple weapon dice comes in. Can even get rid of MDB if we want as manouvers no longer trade for damage there is no longer a need for a big base damage bonus.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:23PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
ONly if you somehow balance out the bigger damage skew so that people who actually wanna play the old school sword and board, or spear carriers aren't getting shafted.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:31PM
#146
|
|
|
ONly if you somehow balance out the bigger damage skew so that people who actually wanna play the old school sword and board, or spear carriers aren't getting shafted.
That's kind of how it's playing out right now, actually. The benefit of reach doesn't really compensate enough for the loss in damage, the polearm feats are atrocious, and for some reason, longspear is a non-finesse two handed weapon that does d8 damage. Wait. What was I getting at?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:38PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2013
|
Hence why I suggested additional manouver points. Though that said, the more I think about it the more I think keep MDB makes sense, progression could make it up to 5[W]+20+Bonus damage and that would seem decently balanced compared to current. Atleast the there would be a tradeoff, right now you lose a grand total of 2 expected damage per round in order to switch to sword and board. While that works in early game, by late game it makes little sense not to have a shield.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 9:55PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
OR we could make the pole-arm feats not suck and let fighter maneuvers work with reach, especially whirlwind attack.
Oh and fighter needs somethign so whirlwind attack isn't the first maneuver everyone picks.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 10:35PM
#149
|
|
|
OR we could make the pole-arm feats not suck and let fighter maneuvers work with reach, especially whirlwind attack.
Oh and fighter needs somethign so whirlwind attack isn't the first maneuver everyone picks.
Well, things like Warding Polearm is something that really ought to be part of the reach property entirely, but D&D has had a history of making polearm feats extremely lackluster. Thanks for making that a level 9 feat, guys. Thanks a lot. Also, I hate how the polearm feats mostly just turn it into a double weapon. There's nothing unique about that. I think the developers simply have had troubles coming up with interesting ideas for polearms, or they have the same bias video games have where a polearm is not a "heroic" weapon, but a giant, oversized anvil on a stick unironically labeled as a maul is.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 08, 2013 - 12:25AM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
The issue is that reach weapons don't really work well in D&D, they often give the wielder too good an advantage. I can hit opponents at twice the distance as they can hit me? Sign me up. In real life, it didn't work that way. And turning the polearm into a double weapon for one on one fighting makes sense, as that's what most ended up doing (mainly the Chinese and Japanese.)
On the other hand, yeah, the feat support absolutely sucks at the moment.
|
|
|
