|
Mr Beens posted:
That brings up the question for me (and I may have just not noticed it in the PHB), are the 3 main physical damage types (bludgeon, pierce, slash) really ever distinguished in defenses (ie. armor/spells) or do they tend to always be grouped as one? EDIT: Answered it myself just now. The only cases where it makes a difference in the PHB are in two spots: 1) Skeleton monsters are vulnerable to bludgeoning 2) The webbing ability that spiders can use to restrain characters have to be destroyed and are immune to bludgeoning (should also be resistant to piercing IMO but whatever) Everywhere else they're mentioned in reference to defenses and receiving damage, they're always grouped up together. It would seem to me a perfect spot to make weapon types a little spicy, but alas. Bhaal fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Sep 15, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
A better solution, by the way, to the whole "but what if my Fighter gets disarmed/finds a random magic weapon that isn't his preferred type that I want to use anyway/is clubbed in his sleep and sold into slavery as seen in the beginning of that classic D&D adventure 'gently caress it, I can't think of a better way to start this campaign off'" is to just have damage and to-hit bonus be a function of class rather than equipment. Dungeon World does exactly this, Fighters in DW do d10 damage whether they're using a master-crafted bastard sword or a rock they picked up off the ground because they're the Fighter and gently caress you, that's why. It doesn't present you with a list of mostly interchangeable weapons then try to convince you that the ability to use all of them is some amazing class feature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Oh look, it's a level 1 creature that resists nonmagical weapons. What a surprise. It's starting to look like this is the edition where damage resistance is more common and earlier encountered than ever before. And of course a single attack routine can knock out an equal-level Fighter. Although looking at some other CR 1 monsters... that seems to be pretty common. I really wonder what the hell their design principle is here. If levels 1 through 3 are the tutorial levels, where players are new and characters are low on resources, why would you make everything so drat swingy? Shouldn't you hold off on that until level 5 or so?
Sage Genesis fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Oh look, it's a level 1 creature that resists nonmagical weapons. What a surprise. It's starting to look like this is the edition where damage resistance is more common and earlier encountered than ever before. And of course a single attack routine can knock out an equal-level Fighter. Although looking at some other CR 1 monsters... that seems to be pretty common. I really wonder what the hell their design principle is here. If levels 1 through 3 the tutorial levels, where players are new and characters are low on resources, why would you make everything so drat swingy? Shouldn't you hold off on that until level 5 or so? Not if you want to appeal to grogs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:A better solution, by the way, to the whole "but what if my Fighter gets disarmed/finds a random magic weapon that isn't his preferred type that I want to use anyway/is clubbed in his sleep and sold into slavery as seen in the beginning of that classic D&D adventure 'gently caress it, I can't think of a better way to start this campaign off'" is to just have damage and to-hit bonus be a function of class rather than equipment. Dungeon World does exactly this, Fighters in DW do d10 damage whether they're using a master-crafted bastard sword or a rock they picked up off the ground because they're the Fighter and gently caress you, that's why. It doesn't present you with a list of mostly interchangeable weapons then try to convince you that the ability to use all of them is some amazing class feature. I've suggested this before, also extending it to AC, and honestly I really like it. When Beowulf's sword bounces off Grendel's mother, he doesn't rummage through his golf bag of weapons for a better damage type; he drops the sword and switches to bare hands. Because his awesomeness and killing ability are his own, not a function of his wealth by level or loot drops.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Imagine this; the Fighter, by virtue of being a master of martial combat, does a minimum of d10 damage with any weapon. He does d10 with a dagger, d10 with a sword, d10 with a spear, whatever. If he happens to find some weapon that does d12 damage like a Grand Guignol Half-Twist Fullblade or whatever then he can do d12. Okay, you're saying, but then why bother switching weapons at all under this system? If a Fighter does d10 damage barring certain rare outliers no matter what he's using then why shouldn't I just rampage through the Tomb of Horrors with a chair leg? First of all, gently caress you, that would be awesome. Second, because in this hypothetical magical wonderland where I run the world, every weapon possesses inherent abilities, techniques, dare I say powers, that can be employed when wielding them assuming, of course, that you have proficiency in them. And Fighters have proficiency in every weapon. Clerics might be able to ring someone's bell with a mace, Rogues might be able to carve someone up with a dagger so they bleed out, Rangers might be able to snipe the weapon out of someone's hand with a bow, but the Fighter can do all of these things and more. Every single weapon the Fighter picks up gives him new options, new techniques and abilities. And hey, what if weapons had further levels of proficiency that unlocked even more powerful techniques to represent immaculate training in the art of loving someone's poo poo up? And what if other classes didn't get access to those? And so as a Fighter you could dedicate yourself to being a peerless master of the bastard sword, but even so you would never ever be rendered helpless or ineffectual if someone happened to catch you without a bastard sword on hand because you're proficient in using your bare hands to murder someone. That is a framework in which "proficiency in all weapons" might be a class feature worth something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Imagine this; the Fighter, by virtue of being a master of martial combat, does a minimum of d10 damage with any weapon. He does d10 with a dagger, d10 with a sword, d10 with a spear, whatever. If he happens to find some weapon that does d12 damage like a Grand Guignol Half-Twist Fullblade or whatever then he can do d12. Half of what you described is the Monk(they can use their martial arts die in place of weapon die on monk weapons, and monk weapons are any simple weapon - they can also finesse any monk weapon)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:And hey, what if weapons had further levels of proficiency that unlocked even more powerful techniques to represent immaculate training in the art of loving someone's poo poo up? And what if other classes didn't get access to those? And so as a Fighter you could dedicate yourself to being a peerless master of the bastard sword, but even so you would never ever be rendered helpless or ineffectual if someone happened to catch you without a bastard sword on hand because you're proficient in using your bare hands to murder someone. I would be delighted if Fighter was a class that indeed played like an MMO, and that MMO was Guild Wars 2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Like at the end of it the argument is literally "by taking away your options, now you can do ANYTHING with your imagination! No longer are you pidgeonholed into having to choose to be cool. Now you can be boringly adequate with ANY weapon!" I got this guy. He's coincidentally named Kai. His character has five options that lead to being super cool. But, you say, what if he wants to be super cool in more then one way? Ok, first, I take away all those options. That's it. That's how the example ends. That's what you're saying is a good idea. Kai Tave posted:A better solution, by the way, to the whole "but what if my Fighter gets disarmed/finds a random magic weapon that isn't his preferred type that I want to use anyway/is clubbed in his sleep and sold into slavery as seen in the beginning of that classic D&D adventure 'gently caress it, I can't think of a better way to start this campaign off'" is to just have damage and to-hit bonus be a function of class rather than equipment. Dungeon World does exactly this, Fighters in DW do d10 damage whether they're using a master-crafted bastard sword or a rock they picked up off the ground because they're the Fighter and gently caress you, that's why. It doesn't present you with a list of mostly interchangeable weapons then try to convince you that the ability to use all of them is some amazing class feature. OD&D is similar in that literally all weapons deal 1d6 damage, period, the end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
If you're using Inherent Bonuses, 4e fighters were pretty good at the whole weaponmaster schtick. Of course, since this is the edition in which you don't need magic weapons, I bet 5e fighters are good at it too! ... right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Like at the end of it the argument is literally "by taking away your options, now you can do ANYTHING with your imagination! No longer are you pidgeonholed into having to choose to be cool. Now you can be boringly adequate with ANY weapon!" I think that's two different approaches to making Fighters interesting. The DW, class-based damage approach is nice for making fighters dangerous killing machines that aren't reliant on their equipment, but can fight their way out of the Big Bad's castle with a loincloth and a frying pan. That doesn't mean the fighter doesn't have interesting options, it means that they aren't helpless when you take away their armoury (which makes sense for a fighter). This is DW, so choice of weapon does have narrative consequences rather than strictly mechanical ones - you can use your spear to keep enemies at bay or polevault over a ledge or whatever - and, importantly, the Fighter can do cool stuff that isn't just rolling bigger dice in combat. The 4th ed approach allows the fighter's mastery of weapons to come to the front, giving them cool tactical options when they wade into combat with 8 different kinds of polearm strapped to their back. I don't think that's necessarily core to making Fighters the badasses that they should be. It's interesting but there are other ways to give them interesting options, since they should always have maneuvers and exploits and whatever and weapons are only a small part of that. Either way is still more interesting than the 5E fighter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Query Copypastad from RPGnet. Given the penalties for exhaustion, Frenzy really doesn't seem to be worth using, and unfortunately most of the things that look like they'd be a nice fit with its theme are covered by later Barbarian abilities. I'm thinking about just allowing the Barbarian a number of penalty-free frenzies equal to their Con modifier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Yeah, the idea of 5E having more interesting options than 4E by sheer value of having less interesting options is just really weird and paradoxical to me. I mean, yeah, passing up a magic weapon just because it isn't your preferred version is kinda "game-y", but I'd rather acknowledge I'm playing a game than be the most uninteresting guy on the battlefield. I'd find a system where weapons had their own innate powers that triggered at higher character levels / specializations, and the fighter innately got most of those powers as he ranked up, very very interesting. But sadly 4E is the closest we can get to that. EDIT: You wouldn't even need to follow the same molds that 4E did. Most weapons can probably go in at least 2 or 3 different directions, adding branching specialities and an element of choice that just aren't present for fighters in most editions. Will your mace strikes shatter the armor beneath them, or smash enemies so hard they can barely think straight? Are your axes brutally dealing intense damage to a single target, or whirling death machines taking out swarms of minions with a single heavy swing? Do you prefer to keep little but a single light blade on you, so you can parry, steal, and wield an opponent's weapon in a single swift motion? Or do you prefer your light blades to slip beneath joints and openings in your enemy's armor, hurting them more lightly but more consistently than ever before? The Bee fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Class-based weapon damage is a pretty good idea IMO. On top of that I'd give Fighters the ability to switch around their weapon-specific feats on the fly: as it's built, the Fighter's not really a master of all weapons simply because of how feats work. If you assume random magical gear the Great Weapon Fighter is never certain of finding that magical maul they want, so they should be able to retrain their weapon specific feats during a (not-so) short rest. Flavor it as a training montage where the Fighter picks up their new flametongue sword and does some cool katas with it before they go on to kick rear end and take names with it. That would still only address a part of the Fighter's problem: the biggest problem for the Fighter isn't that they can't reliably be good in a fight, it's the fact that quite a number of classes can be just as good as a Fighter or even better in a fight with the expenditure of a couple of resources. The other thing is that the Fighter doesn't have a unique thing they can do outside of fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:as it's built, the Fighter's not really a master of all weapons simply because of how feats work. Arena Fighters in 4e had a class feature to let weapon feats apply their effects to other weapons (they chose 2 weapons at chargen to be their "Arena weapons" or whatever). Was pcool, maybe add something like that to Champion or a homebrew archetype.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
How does a fighter in 4e get better version of his weapon through the campaign? If a fighter's choice of weapon is something insanely rare, like say, a 2 handed flail, is the DM expected to have the party find magic 2 handed flails of various enchantment power throughout the campaign? 2e/3e/5e seem to be saying no gently caress you, find another weapon to specialize in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
So, what combat masteries/superiority things should I take? Feinting Attack is a no-brainer, Rally seems nice for the utility, what else should I consider?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
4e assumes the GM is going to hand out upgrades of party gear--or, as I often do it, just upgrade the one they already have. In fact, it has a wishlist setup in the core rules. The players write down a few pieces of level appropriate gear they want for their characters and then the GM makes sure to include stuff from that in their loot. Nothing inherently rare about something like that, either. In 4e "exotic" weapons are called Superior weapons--they're more complicated to master, not necessarily rare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How does a fighter in 4e get better version of his weapon through the campaign? If a fighter's choice of weapon is something insanely rare, like say, a 2 handed flail, is the DM expected to have the party find magic 2 handed flails of various enchantment power throughout the campaign? 2e/3e/5e seem to be saying no gently caress you, find another weapon to specialize in. 1) Inherent bonsues, 2) we ruled that if the item had a "higher-level" version, the player got that version when he reached that level, with the idea being that they had become more skilled at using the weapon's magic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How does a fighter in 4e get better version of his weapon through the campaign? If a fighter's choice of weapon is something insanely rare, like say, a 2 handed flail, is the DM expected to have the party find magic 2 handed flails of various enchantment power throughout the campaign? 2e/3e/5e seem to be saying no gently caress you, find another weapon to specialize in. You can do that, keep putting down 2-handed flails for him to find...or use the Inherent Bonuses rule and get your math +'s as you level. In that case I guess the fighter wouldn't be getting better versions of the weapon, but instead would be getting better at using it. Plus there's a feat (Master at Arms) that gives you your math-fix attack bonus regardless of weapon, so it's easy peasy to have a fighter use whatever's on hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
I'm personally not very fond of rotating out a character's main gear anyway. Trinkets, amulets, rings, and the like, okay, but weapons and armor I prefer to be more of a signature thing that gets mechanical upgrades over the course of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
The "4E has no options!" argument is a carry over argument from the early days of the edition war. I remember one of the most baffling "criticisms" of 4E was that it had less "options" and those who defended 3E fought tooth and nail in arguing that 3E had somehow MORE options than 4E. Yes, because somehow 4E, which allowed me to create a Minotaur Wizard at Level 1 who was no less functional than any other Wizard, a Fighter/Wizard multiclass that actually functioned, gave martial classes something to do other than say "I attack" every round and classes that gained something unique and new almost every level instead of having heaps of dead levels to slog through, was clearly the system with LESS options. I remember I took up a challenge by one of these people who argued that 4E had less options than 3E. He argued that every Warlock played the same, so I said, "Alright. How about a gentleman's bet? Choose a race and a Pact for the Warlock, and I will make no less than 4 completely different Level 1 characters who will all run differently from each other. In fact, to make this even more of a challenge, I will use no multiclass options and pull only from the PHB" He chose Tiefling and Infernal Pact. I made 5 characters, each able to replicate a classic archetype: A Bard, a Priest, a Thief, a Wizard and a Fighter. Traditional Warlock wasn't even one of them. If you want to see them, click here. He was so set in his ways though, that even when blatantly disproven he argued that because a few of the characters had the same powers that it proved HE was right. He kept denying how wrong he was even after I pointed out that in 3E, every loving wizard takes the same drat spell list. It's just a mindset that completely escapes sanity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
If you're playing full RAW, there's also a bunch of rituals that help you get what you need, like Transfer Enchantment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. You can definitely use rituals to turn other magic items you find into the kind you use--and if you take a couple feats, you can eve do that on your Fighter! Doesn't even require a roll!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:4e assumes the GM is going to hand out upgrades of party gear--or, as I often do it, just upgrade the one they already have. In fact, it has a wishlist setup in the core rules. The players write down a few pieces of level appropriate gear they want for their characters and then the GM makes sure to include stuff from that in their loot. That's pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Esser-Z posted:I'm personally not very fond of rotating out a character's main gear anyway. Trinkets, amulets, rings, and the like, okay, but weapons and armor I prefer to be more of a signature thing that gets mechanical upgrades over the course of the game. Absolutely. My personal opinion is that +1 weapons and armors shouldn't be a thing in the game (but they obviously are, because of tradition) and magic items should be more on the side of wondrous items: stuff like decanters of endless water, portable holes and such. You can still have magical weapons, but they should be defined by the special qualities they have, not by what bonuses they give, so a flaming sword might be a thing, but it doesn't give a magical bonus to hit and damage rolls. (Well, obviously it'd give something like a +1d6 fire damage, but the point is that its function isn't to get your to hit bonus on the level that the game assumes.) One of my biggest disappointments about 5e is the fact that they talked about magic items being optional, yet a number of monsters in the game are still all but immune to attacks made with non-magical weapons. Like, it's really simple: get rid of the +1 to hit and damage junk, don't make your monsters immune to non-magical weapons, and bam, you've got a system where magic items are entirely optional (provided you've got the math right). Then, if you want to throw in the occasional holy avenger longsword, make sure that it does not add +1 to hit and damage forever and that you actually take into account the existence of such items in your encounter-building guidelines. For an example, if you've got said holy avenger longsword, you can either throw standard encounters at the PCs (which will thus be easier on the PCs simply because they've got a holy avenger with them, meaning that they'll actually get the feeling that the magical evil-destroying sword is actually turning things in their favor) or up the ante and throw a couple of extra monsters or a single tougher one into the encounter (and in this case, provided the players have a context for understanding that this encounter would normally be really tough on them, they'll feel empowered by the extra benefit granted to them by the longsword). What you don't do is pretend that magic items are nonessential and then build a bunch of monsters that basically scream "Should've brought a magic weapon.  "
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:If you're playing full RAW, there's also a bunch of rituals that help you get what you need, like Transfer Enchantment. Yea that was a cool feature that I'm surprised other versions of D&D don't have. Can't find a +3 Maul, just take that +3 axe of no one in the part uses axes, and make your own +3 maul. Or is having weapon enchants being a resource that you can transfer around at a moderate cost to gamey for grogs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Is there any reason not to houserule that fighters (and perhaps even just saying "every class with access to Fighting Styles") can decide upon rolling initiative which Fighting Style they want to use, and possibly even change their Fighting Style during combat with an action? (And maybe allowing the option to change weapons using the same action.) I mean, in general it's not like Fighting Styles are *that* powerful, so I don't think there's really a ton lost by allowing that level of flexibility. The option for going with a specialized build via feats like Shield Master, Great Weapon Mastery, etc would still exist too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
branar posted:Is there any reason not to houserule that fighters (and perhaps even just saying "every class with access to Fighting Styles") can decide upon rolling initiative which Fighting Style they want to use, and possibly even change their Fighting Style during combat with an action? (And maybe allowing the option to change weapons using the same action.) No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:One of my biggest disappointments about 5e is the fact that they talked about magic items being optional, yet a number of monsters in the game are still all but immune to attacks made with non-magical weapons. Like, it's really simple: get rid of the +1 to hit and damage junk, don't make your monsters immune to non-magical weapons, and bam, you've got a system where magic items are entirely optional (provided you've got the math right). Like, a level 1 monster with 22 hp, and a special condition to take less/extra damage? Doesn't seem too bad in your special feely places where all D&D judgments in 2014 reside. A level 1 monster with 44 hp? Now, hold the phone, that's one tough snake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:I kind of wonder how much of the glut of "Resistances: normal poor people poo poo" monsters is to do with making it look like the math's more squished than it is. If the existence of monsters resistant to non-magical weapons can be attributed to artificially pumping up monsters to make them tougher without going hog wild with the numbers, it's a really backwards way of doing it and only exasperates the importance of magic weapons in a system where they're supposed to be completely nonessential. What I think it comes down to is simply that the 5e designers never had a clear design in mind as far as how to make magic items nonessential. Actually, I think there might be a mistake of communication here: when the 5e designers talked about the system not assuming magic items what they've really meant is that they've instead wanted to do is to obfuscate how important magic items, unlike in 3e and 4e (which were both pretty explicit about the fact that at certain levels you'd need equipment with certain bonuses to be viable). What they're really saying is that "We want to make magical items feel cool and magical again, so that means no more magic item shopping lists for players!" which is, OK, actually kind of cool and I agree with the idea aesthetically. But the fact that so many monsters in the game require magic weapons to give the PCs a fighting chance against them acts completely at cross purposes to that. I guess it goes back to "empowering the GM," but seriously, if you're saying one thing ("Magic weapons are a big deal!") and then the game acts in another way ("Magic weapons are essential at higher levels!") then it just goes to show that there wasn't actually a lot of thought put into it. The really heartbreaking thing is that they could've made a system where magic weapons are not essential yet feel really special and it would've not even been that hard. Instead, like in many places in 5e, they decided to cling blindly to tradition, resulting in a situation which just goes against their supposed vision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
They didn't cling blindly to tradition, their hands were guided by thousands of shrieking voices that magic items belong in the DMG. That's the power of the DM: players must to borrow your book to see what their gear does. And you can say "no."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
moths posted:They didn't cling blindly to tradition, their hands were guided by thousands of shrieking voices that magic items belong in the DMG. I mean, I sort of agree with the idea of magic items being in the DMG. It makes sense when the game is trying to go for an aesthetic where magic items are mysterious and rare. It doesn't make sense when most of your magic items amount to standard fare like healing potions and +1 swords or when the rules of the game absolutely necessitate that characters have access to them to perform at anything approaching competence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Unfortunately HBO only affected opportunity attacks, not charging or defender punishments. 4e Fighters can already stop enemies cold or grab them with Grappling Strike on OAs so Don't forget "Pinning Challenge"! Take any two-handed weapon and then your MBAs also immobilize if the target is already marked. What this means is: Step 1 - attack bad guy. Now he is marked. Step 2 - if bad guy tries to shift away to avoid an OA, you still get to make an MBA and stop his movement. Step 3 - bad guy can never escape unless you miss your MBA (as a great weapon fighter with a fullblade and all appropriate accuracy feats, that is exceedingly unlikely)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:I kind of wonder how much of the glut of "Resistances: normal poor people poo poo" monsters is to do with making it look like the math's more squished than it is. Well, if it's designed to be a tough wall for level 1 characters to overcome... PHB posted:Shillelagh They didn't exactly do a terrific job of it. Past that, the only other ways for classes to get magical weapons without the DM dropping them is the Warlock's Pact of the Blade and the Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon (which is only for 1 minute before a rest is required), the Monk's Ki-Empowered Strikes at level 6, or if the Lore Bard picks up Shillelagh at level 6 (or any Bard at level 10). So if Magic Weapons are truly optional then things are going to be annoying for a long time. Or just spam elemental damage cantrips. Also, fun fact: Antimagic field suppresses spells and magic weapons, but not resistance/immunity to nonmagic weapons like it did in 3e. Not sure how often that would come up, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Don't forget the aptly-named level 1 spell Magic Weapon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Boing posted:The 4th ed approach allows the fighter's mastery of weapons to come to the front, giving them cool tactical options when they wade into combat with 8 different kinds of polearm strapped to their back. I don't think that's necessarily core to making Fighters the badasses that they should be. It's interesting but there are other ways to give them interesting options, since they should always have maneuvers and exploits and whatever and weapons are only a small part of that. Well in my ideal imaginary world Fighters would access to more options beyond that...in addition to weapon proficiency unlocking a variety of weapon-specific maneuvers I'd also rework Action Dice into a much better system that grants Fighters a selection of scaling and increasingly potent techniques they can use with any weapon as they level up, on par with the Wizard in terms of being able to turn a battle around, instead of picking off a static list of unimpressive effects that results in you scraping the bottom of the barrel as you get more powerful. I'd also do things like give Fighters a class feature where they, and no other class, get opportunity attacks 1/turn instead of 1/round, a class feature where they count every weapon in their hands (including their bare hands) as magical for the purposes of ignoring damage resistance, etc. And that's just the combat stuff, I'd also look into giving Fighters a selection of useful out-of-combat abilities as well. I mean, I personally don't really have a problem with how 4E gave you a list of specialties to choose from and encouraged you to follow those, I'd be just as happy with a new edition that made me choose between being a Great Weapon Fighter or a Brawler Fighter but made those choices actually cool and meaningful, but if I had to design a Fighter where the emphasis was on making "proficient in all weapons" actually worth something then that's how I'd approach it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Salamander text and Fire Snake art / statblock got leaked. gently caress's sake has there actually been a low-CR monster yet previewed which DOESN'T resist non-magical weapons. Oh no, no need for everyone to have a golf bag of magic poo poo here unless they want to be effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:magic doesn't have to worry about that poo poo because it just does "damage" Magic certainly is typed damage that has to deal with resistances and immunities. I get your larger point, and the wizard won't really care about resistance too often because she will have other spells that ignore a particular type of resistance (or the whole damage/resistance sub-game as you go on to say). But the statement I quoted is completely false.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Magic certainly is typed damage that has to deal with resistances and immunities. So you understood what I meant then ("that poo poo" contextually referring to Damage Resistance from normal, non-magical weaponry).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:34
|
|