Search results

--EDITED: Lets keep the snark to a minimum, and focus debate on the issues. Seriously, the amount of revisionist history in this thread is epic. A first level wizard/mage/magic-user has NEVER been a damage-centric character in any of the editions I've played (1-3.5 + PF). Their forte has been...

Good point. Which would make this a great feat for a one-handed reach weapon. Shove then hit. Or, better yet, with normal reach, hit, then shove, then AoO!

OK, that's good to know. Now I'd rate the damage as "barely adequate for a frontline fighter," as opposed to the previous "almost barely adequate." :lol:

Correct me if this has changed in the final draft, but does not Precise Strike require a swift action to use and is precision damage? So the Swashbuckler must give up most of his other class features (since parry/riposte and charmed life are also swift actions) in order to do damage that won't...

I play 5e without a grid (just like one group I was a part of that played 2e without NWPs). It's more fun for us that way. Why is it a problem that the fighter can bend bars and the thief can't? This is a class feature... one of the reasons you take the class. Making it a skill or feat...

Yeah, I am saying it is problematic. My assertion isn't even controversial; it's EXPLICITLY STATED right in the 2e PHB: (2e PHB, page 54 - Nonweapon Proficiencies) First, nonweapon proficiencies are rigid. Being so defined, they limit the options of both the player and the DM. That's why...

I think you've actually glossed over the problem with 3.5 that 5e is designed to fix (i.e., what makes 5e more like 1e or 2e, rather than 3e+). The issue is not the number of rules (heck 1e had more rules than 2e), but introduction of skills and feats to leverage the rules. Think about it...

I, too, have suffered many party defeats due to stupidity on our part. Likewise, we have had TPKs because our table agreed it would be the correct outcome of a particular defeat that left us helpless. But the mechanics (randomness) used in the game have never TPKed us, becuase it can't...

You've missed my point. You are describing a party that has been incapacitated. All are at zero hp. That is NOT a TPK. The party is not TPKed until you, the DM, declare that the monsters have killed them. Your choice. In 5e, the likelihood that none of the seven will stabilize is...

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. In fact, I'm going to make a blanket statement here that might sound controversial, but I think is completely totally true. Bad luck, or randomness, NEVER causes TPKs. TPKs are always a DM's choice. Think about the actual odds of a TPK by dice...

Mostly they did it the way you suggest. One thing about the rules, it says you can take your bonus action any time you want. So they would take their off-hand swing with SA (2d6) to drop the first mob with 7hp, then move and take their main hand (1d6+3) on the next. I was iffy about this, but...

So far, my fighter feels "fighty". :lol: Truthfully, I'm one of those folks in Pathfinder that has big issues with the caster/martial disparity, so fighters are kind of important to me. I think I like how casters have been dialed back as far as power goes, while still keeping them engaged in...

These arguments always annoy me, because both sides are treating assumptions as if they are facts. First of all, references to TPKs as part of a "game" require that the definition of game be warped to the point where it means "the way I play." For example, randomness is NOT a defining...

The ability of martials to shield wizards from the threat of melee makes wizards even more powerful (as they can be glass cannons with impunity). This is not a difficult concept.

It's hard to compare them, as spellcasters are so broken in PF that I wouldn't want an EK to be the equivalent. However, in an attempt to answer your question, let's look at each in turn. Magus high burst damage (shocking grasp cheese), below-average regular damage increasing crit ranges...

I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me or arguing in the first part. My contention is that 5e is purposely reducing the "crowd-control" aspect of tactics that grew up out of 3e and grid-based combat. While all classes do rise in power, bounded accuracy and other systems still restrain...

Sure it is. It works to establish that you need to find another table, since any DM that has animal-intelligence opponents concentrate on wizards and use advanced tactics is only looking to screw you over. So it helps you find a new DM. :]

One thing I forgot... I forgot to add that... and I'm incredulous that I would ever say this... Halflings might be overpowered. Their "Lucky" feature is pretty awesome. Our halfling rogue rolled four natural ones during the course of play (and with TWF, he's rolling more dice than others)...

I'm curious about the following statement: "That said, it appears to me that the system will have no problem adjusting to more plentiful proficient saves." Please walk me through how you've determined that. I would hazard to guess that most of us haven't played enough games (especially at...

I think this is intended. Remember comments by M. Mearls (I think it was him) that the team wanted to make lower CR monsters viable threats even at higher levels. The inability to "tank" really does help that be possible. A 4-on-4 fight at low level could be approached so that the squishy...