Search results

This, this, this, absolutely this. Never again a dead level, please.

Then what, pray tell, does the Fighter bring to the table?

Didn't the mods ask you to stop doing this?

The problem, once again, is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Fighter Class. Because I can just as easily talk about that one time I played a Wizard and I did way more than just cast spells. Or, in other words, there was nothing inherent to the Fighter class that let you do all...

They did this in 4E, and people, when told that if they wanted to play an archer should select the Ranger class, revolted: "But I want to play a *Fighter*!" Nonsensical, but true.

This is, IMO, the biggest problem facing the fighter.

... He's not rolling 2d[W] at Level 2 or 3d[W] at level 3, so why on Earth would you assume that he's doing 20d[W] at Level 20?

Except my point is that everything you said is entirely dependent on the player, and not at all on the character; ergo, it has nothing to do with Fighters (or, more generally, martial characters).

The problem I have with: ... is that it can be trivially rewritten as: The power I'd prefer my [wizard / cleric / thief / barbarian / druid / bard / paladin / ranger / spellblade / warpriest] have is his player's power of imagination to pull off cool maneuvers, and then give the DM the power...

I guess I have a problem with, "You want to mix-and-match a physical combatant, with armor and a weapon, with magic? That's overpowered / munchkin / badwrongfun," when the cleric is, like, totally sitting right there.

While it sounds cool, I haven't seen it work very well. And, the one time I have played with it extensively, it worked really, really poorly (Star Wars d20 Revised). The benefits of spending a large chunk of HP were never high enough to justify the expenditure, making the trade-off a bad choice.

Color me shocked.

I love the direction this poll and thread are going. I'm a huge fan of hero point / action point systems in just about any configuration I've seen them, and would love to see them continue in D&D Next - as part of a "hero point" module.

You're presuming that I think it's a game-breaker to have unlimited attack cantrips.

Yes, because in combat I want to play Galstaff the Sorcerer of Light, not Galstaff the Terrible Crossbowman, I Mean, Really, I Can't Hit Anything to Save My Life - Commoners Shoot Better Than This.

So, staves would be banned, as well?

It's certainly a system with possibilities. Star Wars Revised showed why letting routine attacks bypass vitality / fatigue is a BAD IDEA (TM). You still have the issue, however, of: Why would a wyvern's sting (or a snake's bite) automatically affect HP / wounds? Is it not possible to parry...

You say this like it's a foregone conclusion or a requirement, and, frankly, I don't see that as being a requirement at all.

So, like, you'd have to cast Vanish on the bad-guy, first, before you cast X-Zone?

Well, with hit point loss not representing serious physical wounds*, and with mundane healing being pretty quick, you just say that they're striking to subdue - and you still take 10 points of damage. ;) * At least until the very end of the pile, at which point the decision to kill (and cause...