Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[Daztur]

As far as fighters being awesome, once upon a time fighters had the best HPs, the best AC, the best saves (to the point where using save or lose spells against high level fighters was dumb) and could make one attack per CLASS LEVEL per round against weak opponents and the poor casters managed to struggle on somehow

 

[the Jester]

Huh... the one thing in that article that surprises me is the "fighters should have the most hit points" comment. Barbarian, where art thou?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps the Barbarian will be a fighter theme/kit/sub-class/whatever?

 

[Argyle King]

It sounds a little like 5E will lean toward Mythic Fantasy as a playstyle.

While I have played games in the past of that style and have also highly enjoyed them, I'm feeling as though that's not really what I'm looking for. 4th Edition does that already. I'm a bit unsure if the Durango's design team means the same thing by 'modularity' as what I wanted them to mean.

 

[Quickleaf]

As far as fighters being awesome, once upon a time fighters had the best HPs, the best AC, the best saves (to the point where using save or lose spells against high level fighters was dumb) and could make one attack per CLASS LEVEL per round against weak opponents and the poor casters managed to struggle on somehow

I've heard that before too, what edition is that from? I started playing with BD&D Rules Cyclopedia and never was exposed to it.

 

[Blackwarder]

Huh... the one thing in that article that surprises me is the "fighters should have the most hit points" comment. Barbarian, where art thou?

Barbarians should be a background, berserkers should be a theme.

Warder

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've heard that before too, what edition is that from? I started playing with BD&D Rules Cyclopedia and never was exposed to it.

1e AD&D.

 

[Nikosandros]

I've heard that before too, what edition is that from? I started playing with BD&D Rules Cyclopedia and never was exposed to it.

It's from AD&D. Fighter-type classes can attack creatures with less than one full hit die and 0-level NPCs once per level.

 

[pemerton]

I've heard that before too, what edition is that from?

1e AD&D.

In AD&D it is one attack per level vs foes of less than 1 HD (fighters, paladins and rangers all get this).

In OD&D I believe the criterion is 1 HD or less. I believe that the reason for the change was that, on OD&D, 1st level fighters had 1+1 HD and so (in their capacity as potential targets, not attackers) were exempt from the rule. When, in AD&D, they were given a flat 1 HD, the cut-off was lowered to maintain the exemption.

 

[GM Dave]

Are you looking for an AC that's higher than a rogue of the same level?

One of the reasons I always wish that D&D separated out armor from hard-to-hittedness is that I really want the rogue to be harder to hit and the fighter to be better at resisting damage. As is, it's really hard to maintain that flavor because between the AC and the hit points, it's all very murky as to what's happening.

I just bought the hard cover version of 'A Song of Ice and Fire RPG' from Green Ronin and it does this.

Plate Armor is the best armor at absorbing damage but it imposes a heavy penalty on your defense making you easier to be hit.

Shields help your defense which can balance things some.

The system also uses a separate Skill/Attribute for calculating damage from hitting. It also divides most of the missile damage and hitting from the melee pair of damage and hitting.

Sorry for the side note please return to the rest of your thread ;>