Crazydwarf
First Post
True, but so can a group of PC's, wich is why it's important fighters need to be "sticky" so the others can do their stuff.killing an enemy 10% faster than normal is much better than being missed an additional 10% of the time IMO. An enemy that is alive longer can do plenty of terrible things and not just whittle down your HP with AC and Ref attacks. They can stun, inspire fear, dominate, and so on.
A THW adds a little stickiness, a shield lets them be stickier a little longer.
Again milage may wary depending on the DM's tactics and choice of monsters for the evening. And difficult, if not downright impossible to account for.
I wouldn't know, I have never played AD&D pre 4e.Sounds similar to 3.x.
It's a system local only to scandinavia I belive, and it wasn't level based.
Looks about right, I'm gonna have to get back to you on this later though, after a thorough think through.Well, it turns out....Lots of stuff that seems to make sense
One problem with boosting THW is that we do not want a defender to outshine the strikers.
And from some sources a well built fighter can allready come close, though how that is possible I do not know, and it speaks ill for strikers if true IMHO
I was aiming for simplicity with a minimum of variations, and I was thinking doing the middle level of each tier (5,15,25 right ?)I think it would be better to have them each face the same monsters rather than each other. I think it would be good to have them face a variety of monsters including some that target will and fort. Obviously, each other wouldn’t do this for the most part. I’d also do different levels (at least one per tier, but I’d do two per tier, one at a lower end of the tier and one at the higher end).
But mine also makes a bad testing grounds for certain weapons, those with reach for starters as I wasnt planning to use minis and terrain at all. I'm not even sure what I think of reach weapons...Too little experience with the game yet.