That is in Gygax's DMG.in one of the earlier books (man I wish I could remember which but it's been over a decade), a fighter's good saves were described in part by shear defiance.
That is in Gygax's DMG.in one of the earlier books (man I wish I could remember which but it's been over a decade), a fighter's good saves were described in part by shear defiance.
Is that what fighters are? Mage bashers?
Did we, in order to complete the definition of what a fighter should be, need to (via inadvertent rulings) increase his ability to resist spells?
If I wanted a mage-basher fighter, I would use specialisation/feats to emulate that, not a side effect of a quirky HP rule.
My understanding of Hit Points was always an abstraction of damage which indicated ones ability to mitigate a dire blow to a mere scratch, hence why fighter has the lions share...it reflects there training. Yet now the ability to mitigate a dire blow to a mere scratch is also the ability to ignore certain spells (even non damage based ones).
The whole thing just doesnt wash with me. I know there are counter arguments to this, I have heard em all, but the arguments, and the idea itself, has simply failed to impress me.
I re-iterate something I posted earlier. I am not alone in this, alot of people agree with me, as do alot disagree with me. But surely, given the amount of objection that is out there, cant WOTC consider some alternatives?
Is that what fighters are? Mage bashers?
Did we, in order to complete the definition of what a fighter should be, need to (via inadvertent rulings) increase his ability to resist spells?
If I wanted a mage-basher fighter, I would use specialisation/feats to emulate that, not a side effect of a quirky HP rule.
There is no rule stating low level foes stop showing up when the players get to high level. They won't be much of a threat but they should still BE there, working in large groups. This is one of the reasons WHY 1st level monster HP are so low, unlike 4E where throwing four 1st level kobolds added almost, if not more than 100HP! onto the adversaries side.* As characters increase in level, these spells eventually become worthless, since the threats the PCs will be typically fighting will have maximum hp totals above the limits of these spells. Why should some 1st level spells, like Grease, remain useful forever, while spells like Charm Person eventually become useless?
so far all this objection seems to be constrained to a handful of posters on 1 thread on 1 website who didnt seem to keen on 5e anyway.
I really hope they dont let nitpicking by a vocal? (maybe) minority change important rules like this.
No matter how you handle save or suck spells someone is gonna be unhappy with it. This particular version seems to have the LEAST amount of complaints in 2 editions so far.
Lets stick with it and give it a chance.
Spend a little time going back over the previous threads of this forum. This has come up plenty of times, So no, it isnt "one" thread.
And the "its a handful of posters", we must be perceiving this differently, cause its coming across to me as more than a "handful"
That's just it.
Using your analogy of the D&D system as a car, I don't want to be sold a car at all.
I want to be sold a frame, some wheels, an engine, and a bunch of other more or less useful parts that will more or less fit with each other and with the wheels-frame-engine; and then build my own damn car.
How about good saving throws, in the AD&D/BD&D sense rather than the much weaker 3e sense? That's where the idea that Fighters should be good at resisting spells comes from; it's part of D&D. Maybe there should be a module for the people who want spells to be harder to resist, as well as the default one that gives the traditional, old-school, version.