Search results

Certainly, I agree with all of that. However, I'm not sure that your objection is particularly meaningful in this instance, because the odds are good that, in one-on-one combat, a single 5th-level Fighter will come out nigh-unscathed against a single ogre. I mean, you see slobo777's post where...

Because Steely_Dan said "an ogre ... will still be a threat to a 10th level party," and "Anyway, what I said holds true, a monster with +6 to hit and 2d8 + 4 damage is still a threat to a 10th level character in 5th Ed." "An ogre" isn't going to be a threat to a 10th-level party, because, as...

Thanks for some actual math examples, slobo. :) Or would that be ... "math"? :D I'd think that, maybe, a couple dwarves piling on with Deadly Strike might take a single ogre out fast enough such that it doesn't get to attack in the later rounds (and reduce total damage that way), but the DPA...

As in, "it doesn't matter, because my point still stands even with the +2 to attack rolls you were requesting, and therefore you're still wrong. You know what? I'm done.

The most recent one. Or are you going to compare the first playtest ogre against the first playtest fighter, too? In the end, it doesn't matter. Adding 2 additional points to the ogre's attack makes him slightly likely to beat the pure-idiot fighter - they're within 1 round of...

Not according to the playest bestiary I've got in front of me right now. Loose math? That's cute. EDIT: Actually, the only thing I missed was the Armor Piercing 4 ability. That raises the Ogre-vs.-Dumb-Fighter damage per round to 5.5, with an average kill-time of 8 rounds, so the Fighter...

The issue is that I'm not sure I'm seeing it, just yet. I mean, I've assumed (in the math above) that the Fighter 5 doesn't have any magic armor, any magic weapons, or any spell support at all. I think the flattened math will make it slightly more likely that a bog-standard ogre will be able...

Here, I'll do the math for you. Ogre: AC 15, 32 HP, +4 to hit, 2d8+4 Bludgeoning Damage 5th-Level Fighter: AC 18 (Banded + Shield); 44 HP (+2 Con), +7 to hit (+4 Fighter, +3 Strength), 1d8+3 damage (Longsword, +3 Str), 2d8 Expertise Dice Assuming the Fighter uses no combat maneuvers at all...

Gimme the numbers. Show me how that ogre is going to threaten a 5th-level fighter, on his own. *snrk* I'm playing Pathfinder right now. I'm not "anti pre-4th Ed" by any means; I'm anti ignorance.

... Because if an ogre isn't going to be a meaningful threat to even a 5th-level fighter, how is it supposed to be a meaningful threat to a fighter with 5 more levels and a group of similarly BA friends? There's no agenda here, just some facts that, for some reason, you aren't acknowledging...

3.XE says it's not. The first one is subpar compared to the other two.

Certainly, but that's not what you seemed to be arguing. You seemed to be saying that making those blasting spells competetive with being a tricky mage would reduce options. Given that: 1) Tricky mages exist 2) Blasty mages exist How is 3) Blasty mages are not meaningfully inferior to...

I don't undertand the question.

How does ensuring that, for example, blaster wizards are effective when compared to trick wizards "limit the options" of the player seeking to play a blaster wizard? Regardless of whether or not that player wants to make an optimized combat monster? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Actually, I'd say that the 3.XE counterspelling mechanic wan't that hard to learn at all (ready an action; id the spell the opponent is casting (which you'll likely be doing anyway); cast the appropriate counterspell; roll a check if you used Dispel Magic); the problem is that the trade-off was...

ComSup.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the rules should silo abilities such that every character has something to bring to the table in each of the three main pillars. I'm saying that, currently, the playtest fighter is bad because it doesn't offer enough in the noncombat pillars. I'm saying that you...

Nope, I'm not! Isn't this fun? Ignoring rules can sometimes, though not always, cause issues. Since hit points are explicitly not meat, then your noncombatant "PC" just has lots of plot protection. It's probably how someone so unsuited to the adventuring lifestyle wasn't murdered by the...

No, I think that combat is a primary part of normal D&D play, and that someone who is not merely "Not Good" at combat but who is "Actually Bad" (@JamesonCourage's words, not mine) is a dangerous liability to the party. That makes the character type suitable for use as an NPC, but a hard sell as...

... Are 11 rats okay?