Results 151 to 154 of 154
-
2012-10-01, 07:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?
Not all opponents are low-op humanoids.
It doesn't look boring to me. The sheer variety available among fighter bonus feats and basic combat maneuvers alone ...
Well, it should perhaps, but it didn't. And Wotco stuck a fork in it five years ago so we're pretty much stuck. Houserules are all we're ever going to have unless we jump to 5E.
In opposition to this is the rather lazy belief (that ultimately means far more effort and far less effectiveness) that each DM should just put in their own "fluff-based" rules to balance things. Not that basing rules on fluff is a bad thing; it's the negligence involved in saying "oh, no, everyone can just make a few changes and the game doesn't need fixed" that's problematic. 3.5 does need fixing, and the best way to do that, is to, you know, actually fix it and let everybody know as best you can.
Fundamentally, this is why I got into projects like RACSD, one of the main reasons I homebrew (or critique homebrew), and in general one of my key focuses. I want to fix the game, not just for a given play group, or a single campaign, but for as many people as possible as correctly as possible.
It's DC 25 for anything you haven't specifically trained the animal to do, and they can only learn 3-6 tricks plus the bonuses from the druid's level. Though personally even that is more reliability than I think they should have.
Yeah, and pretty much everyone agrees the casters are overpowered so how is that a problem exactly?
Nonsense. You're still whacking them with AoOs as they try to sneak by, and they're not just going to ignore you; you're hurting them and so their ignorant primitive impulse is to hurt you back. You've trained to bear the pain unflinchingly; they haven't.
Furthermore, there are some enemies that are specifically resistant to pain, or sensible enough to ignore minor pin: will a commanded, mindless undead care noticeably? How about a giant? An ooze? A dragon?
My perspective is just as relevant as anyone else's.Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-10-01, 07:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?
I want fighters to be non-magical, but I want them to be superhuman by level 6. Most importantly, when facing a level x caster, the level x fighter should win 50% of the time.
Of course, one of the advantages a caster has is utility- divination, mobility, etc. That means if they were to meet, without preparation or surprise, within line of sight, on that mythical even playing field, the fighter should usually win- say 75% of the time. That scenario is basically the fighter getting the drop on the caster.
The opposite is also true, of course. Casters should be able to get advantage, when they find the fighter's weaknesses.
Basically I see the fighter near the far mundane end of the spectrum, just this side of barbarians, and wizards on the far magical end. All the other core classes should fall in between.
-
2012-10-02, 02:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?
Level 1 - soldier out of basic training
Level 3: Realistic veteran soldier
Level 6 - upper end of realistic human experience; The Great Escape; Die Hard; Conan
Level 10-15: wuxia, chambara
Level 16-20: Hercules, Gilgamesh
-
2012-10-02, 08:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- UK
Re: What do you think a Fighter should be?
Unfortunately, D&D gives casters so many toys that the best of the purely mundane ones left over aren't really very good. A common complaint about melee powerups is that they tread on the toes of the casters, but the casters shouldn't be standing there in the first place.