GMforPowergamers
Legend
The more I think about this the more I think the fighter needs to kill the warlord and take his stuff.
I think a fighter with a wider breath of abilities is the answer.
D&D Blog. Should Fighters get multiple attacks?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
The more I think about this the more I think the fighter needs to kill the warlord and take his stuff.
I think a fighter with a wider breath of abilities is the answer.
Experiences vary. In all the campaigns I played in, at epic levels the fighter was the one who bested the king, inherited the army, ruled lands. I usually found the sweet spot for the wizard was levels 10-15, but afterwords the epicness was the realm of the fighter. Of course this vaired, depending on whether it was a plane based campaign (advantage wizard) or kingdom based campagin (advantage fighter). I guess it really depended on the DM, but many of my DMs made sure to give out items that were for marshal players that made them superheroes too. It depends on what you want to do, if you want to fly and bounce planes, you should probably pick a wizard. If you want to lead men, laugh as weakling rain arrows on you go fighter.
I have an alternate proposal. Keep the warlord and expand what it can do. Keep the (3.5 style) at will fighter and try to keep it balanced in play. This way players have both choices.
4e is considered the strongest D&D math-wise so far. And still trough stuff like Kulkor Arms Master you can build gouge-wielding wizards that do more damage than your average striker. As long as you can control static bonuses multi-attacks are fine if properly balanced, but historically in D&D static bonuses have been creeping in with every new splatbook since at least 2ed (I only briefly played 1st).
In 2ed I played an high level fighter that could easily kill or badly injure an ancient dragon in one round using 2 weapons, haste from a friendly wizard and a sort of ability (don't remember the source) that gave you for a round a number of extra attacks based on the result of a Dexterity check.
Multi-attacks are like a cobra. If you approach it you need to know exactly what you're doing.
3/2 attacks were bad because it added one more thing to keep track of. Complexity is a great way to reduce the core audience.
Trailblazer's approach required a fairly straightforward scaling of AC with CR. Otherwise, that -2 can be meaningless (requires a 20 to hit, or hits on a 2+ either way -- for example). Furthermore, the idea of the full attack really makes a battlefield less dynamic for not a lot of benefit. I think this especially hurts rogues but shows up with all classes.
Non-magical characters don't usually have much to track, but I don't think it's a good idea since they have other ways to make it work.
I don't know what you mean by straightforward, but 5e is supposed to scale slower. The penalty could be -4 or -1 or whatever works. It's all about averages: it is ok if multi-attack is more effective against certain enemies and less effective against others. That may even add tactical choices.
Loss of mobility is a trade-off, but 5e could have multi-attack take Standard + Minor action, or only take the Standard.
I think it might be a good way to distinguish heavy and light infantry types: heavy infantry get multi-attack with Std. + Move, light infantry get it with Std. (or + Minor). If they tied it to armor and load, instead of class, it would be cool.
n00bdragon
First Post
So, because your DM manually fixed the problems inherent in the system by devoting extra (and unwarranted) attention on players with mechanically inferior characters that somehow negates the problems that were there in the first place?
If your boat has a hole in it the ability to plug it with a finger is not a "feature".
WarlockLord
First Post
The wizard can have his own kingdom too, with armies of demons and undead. The wizard can ignore that little "free will" thing too.
"The DM can boost the fighters" is not an answer.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
One part of the idea of the balance between wizards and fighters was, once upon a time, twofold:
This, combined, meant wizards might not rule the planes or control undead armies, and fighters very well might be able to teleport between planes and fly and turn invisible (due to magic equipment). It certainly didn't hold very tightly like that, but I believe that was part of the original idea of how they would be balanced.
- Wizards were not guaranteed to be able to access the spells they wanted. Rolls to learn and costs of spellbooks and no "automatic spell learning" meant that spells were a reward, a chance to do something cool (or not). This lessened over time as players fairly rightly rallied
- Fighters were able to use the most diverse array of weapons, armor, and equipment, which helped them achieve the edge when getting awarded treasure. Who can use the magic sword or the flying shield or the plate armor made from dragon bones? Fighters. No one else (well, sometimes clerics for armor). Over time, the game tried to equalize this aspect of play, giving all characters magic items, and regulating them to ensure a level of balance.
This, combined, meant wizards might not rule the planes or control undead armies, and fighters very well might be able to teleport between planes and fly and turn invisible (due to magic equipment). It certainly didn't hold very tightly like that, but I believe that was part of the original idea of how they would be balanced.
I never said extra or unwarranted attention. My DM was simply giving out magic items as they always do. If a fighter gets the hitpoints, multiple attacks, magic abilities from items, no SR, ability to use almost any item, and better saves he can be pretty kick but against a wizard that memorized the wrong spells yet again.
I'm not trying to say every edition doesnt need fixing or rebalancing. But the idea of a warrior and a mage can be balanced without taking the magic out of the mage.
