Search results

If they are, then heavy armor dude ( no need for high dex, same AC+More HP+higher con based saving throws ) has the upper hand anyway in terms of staying power, even if their AC is even.

This is a function of higher dexterity, it's got nothing to do with light armor. It's like saying that, since you're wearing heavy armor, and you're free to put your 18 elsewhere, say constitution, heavy armor provides a bonus to con saving throws and hit points.

I'm fine with heavy armor not providing the absolute highest AC, as long as it's still on par with the highest AC achievable in light/medium armor. After all, plate armor was conceived to fight human opponents wielding human sized weapons; I doubt that when facing something the size of a...

Oh, I'm fine with AC being hard capped at 20, as long as to hit is hard capped at +10. If to-hit isn't capped, AC shouldn't be either.

Even assuming that he literally means every spell and that it's not just hyperbole (which it probably is) then stop throwing offensive spells at the fighter? Summon some monsters, cast invisibility, teleport away, drop a boulder on him with telekinesis and so forth. He doesn't say that he can...

Nope, it doesn't. "Being the best at fighting"=/= "won't go down in a straight fight, ever". Let's assume a duel between a wizard and a fighter. If the fighter wins 60% of the time, he's "better than the wizard" at fighting. If he has a 60% to beat any other opponent, then he's legitimately "the...

That's an interesting question. They said that they're basing the game on the assumption that every character should be at least competent at what they call "the three pillars of the game": Roleplaying, Exploration, Combat. So, now, say that the fighter is great with every weapon and every...

Well, first, with Cruel Reaper you can only shift 2 squares, so at most you're taking out 5-6 opponents with the second swipe; second, it's 1/encounter, so it's not like he's taking out "20 opponents/round", he can kill quite a bit of minions ( and only minions, because you're not taking out...

No, but you could assume that the "hold" spells only last 1 round against an equal level fighter, so that the wizard has the time to catch his breath and move away rather than ending the fight outright. Also, you could assume that charm spells won't work against someone that's actively...

In 4e, fighters were balanced with wizards in combat first and foremost. He's saying that's not the case in the very first point he makes: 1. The Fighter Is the Best at . . . Fighting! However the classes are balanced with each other, that's not the kind of balance that 4e achieved ( which can...

But he's not saying "Wave=10 enemies"! You're assuming it. It could just be hyperbole, or he could just mean "3-5 foes (low level) foes a round", which is perfectly in line with what a fighter could do in just about every other edition of D&D... And, BTW, a 4e fighter cannot kill 20-40 enemies a...

...How do you quantify a single wave? 5 enemies? 3? 10? What does even "wave" mean in this context? A high level 3.5 fighter is capable of killing 8-15 enemies each round with cleave ( and without a reach weapon ), for example. Is that a single wave? Multiple waves? You're not even getting...

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing that you should expect to be hearing from just about any game designer, especially from someone that's designing a class based game. He's talking about fighters here, and he's assuring people that he's going to address what's considered a problem with...

How so? 4e started from the basic premise that every class was equally good at fighting... this is a definite break from that paradigm.

Actually, it's not that it invalidates the point, it's that it makes it moot. Let me explain: "video-gamey" doesn't mean anything by itself, so unless you add what you think makes it "video-gamey" and what you dislike about video games ( or about a particular video game ) the statement is just...

Doesn't make them right, especially considering that there are a lot of games ( and videogames) around with just about every feature you listed.

Sorry, not seeing it, and I've been playing WoW for 7 years or so, give or take. In WoW, combat is about rotations or priorities, a constant stream of healing, tanking and repetitive tactics. It also features different kinds of resource management depending on your class ( rage for warriors...

Yes, thank you. Agree. For me, it depends on how the game's supposed to be balanced. If the premise is the same as in 4e ( everyone should be equally effective in combat ) then I agree. Otherwise, I'm fine with iterative attacks, as long as they all use the same attack bonuses and damage. I...

No need to try again, methinks :P

TBH, I'm fine with them releasing a new version of the game every 5 or 6 years. Heck, I'd be fine with them releasing a new edition every 3 years, for that matter. Look at 4e: if you take into account Dungeon and Dragon, I wonder how much design space is left. I felt the same when 4e was...