Search results

Yeah. "A fighter expends energy to pull off difficult maneuvers and can use an action to take a break and regain some of that energy," sounds more like the Warblade's swift action/basic melee attack or spending an action to do nothing thant he Crusader's expend every maneuver to recover them model.

Yeah. This new iteration sounds awfully like the Warblade. Which is a good thing.

Clumsy enough to do cartwheels and pushups, which is a hell of a long way away from "so heavy they had to be craned onto their horses." The point is, plate is much lighter and easier to move in than lighter D&D armors, because the weight is broadly distributed across the body. There's no...

Ahem. Tumbling in full plate is quite possible ("http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg").

One possibility: no access to at-will spells or tradition encounter spell-lists, and maybe no spells below a certain level. So you get power, but at the expense of utility.

Party's filled. Can't find the delete button in edit.

I think this is one of those "chacun son goute" things. I played plenty of 2E Fighters and found them never as engaging mechanically as they were in the narratives in my head. If 3.X hadn't really screwed up on the magic side, and if feat taxes hadn't been so high, I would have enjoyed the...

I meant in the sense of the Warlord being a Leader type that focuses on expertise in military tactics (and the Fighter being an inward-focused military tactician), whereas the Bard is more magic-oriented, albeit music-magic (and outward-directed compared to the Wizard's more individualistic...

I really like the edited Warlord; now to figure out how to balance my "Cosmopolitan Ex-Pat Mercenary Knight" between Fighter levels and Warlord levels...

As you say, all Warrior classes get extra attacks, and Fighters wind up with extra attacks faster and a total of a half-attack more. Doesn't feel distinct to me - nor did getting more feats than everyone else in 3.X. That's because the classic D&D paladin started out as a sub-class, but even...

To use an old SAT analogy (so sad those aren't used anymore): Bard:Warlord::Wizard:Fighter

Look, obviously the raw data would be best, but given the much larger numbers of people in the 5e open playtest, I'd weight it more heavily than I would any playtesting done for Essentials. But yes, with any project like this, you're dialing it in. And now we have a Fighter than can be both...

Yes, I understand that many among the 20% don't want to play fighters - the point is, by allowing CS dice to be dumped into Deadly Strike, they remove the argument that the complex Fighter would deprive those who do like the Simple Fighter of their preferred playstyle. Which means that there...

The results weren't published, but that's what Mearls has been saying repeatedly, at GenCon, Pax, etc. He could be completely lying, but it matches pretty well with online reactions to the Playtest 1 Fighter who started with no more class features than +2 to damage. The current Fighter build...

I don't know, Tony Vargas. I think one useful thing the playtest has shown us is that 80% of the playtesters, across edition preferences, hate the Playtest 1 version of the Fighter and want something more involving. We don't have the numbers in yet on CS, but given the response online, I'd...

I think it's both. The play experience is supposed to be evocative of the concept of a class, and the class concept is the "integrity of the shared fiction." You can get the class mechanics right, but if they're evoking a class concept that isn't any good, it's still not going to work.

If Tumble is an iconic Rogue ability (although, wasn't it a Skill in 3.x?), then Duelist Fighters shouldn't be Tumbling. They should be given an ability to Feint instead. The level of overlap between martial classes should be the general actions you can take in the core combat rules plus the...

If any class can take the main class mechanics of any other class without reference to Specialties, its a classless system, because there are no boundaries between classes. If what you're talking about is Specialties, I'm fine with that, because they're grounded in past training. An Acolyte...

What you've described is a rather fun-sounding fantasy RPG that's designed around a classless system, but not really D&D.

Fluff, nothing. The Fighter Design Goals document describes the class concept as: What makes the Fighter a Fighter is skill, training, and experience. By contrast, ever since they absorbed the AD&D 2nd edition Berserker kit in 3rd edition (and even in 2nd, the Barbarian Ravager kit was...