Search results

I can't think of any reason why I'd want to play that over a fighter in the vast majority of campaigns, which are unlikely to focus on wilderness exploration. You can't make a class that mechanically niche. It just won't end well. Especially not with such a history as the DnD Ranger.

Okay, but what does that translate to, mechanically, and how does it relate to the "iconic Dungeons and Dragons Ranger?"

So, um... what is going to be the ranger's mechanical schtick that differentiates it from the fighter, if not an animal companion, dual wielding, archery, spells...?

I would like to point out a type of "weapon specialist" already exists in DnD Next. It's called the Sharpshooter, and it specializes in ranged weaponry (as in, it obstinately performs better with ranged weapons than melee weapons).

Isn't DnD naturally supposed to be using game mechanics to tell a story? I don't understand your complaint. DnD should be neither purely narrative nor purely tactical, both are elements of the game. I guess you have a particular problem with this styel of narrative, one that is at least...

steeldragons: I wouldn't mind improvements coming as you level up, that's why I suggested them as a specialty (and 4th edition already did this by implementing many facets of weapon specialization as feats). Though I do think there should be some minor benefit at level 1.

Once again, I completely disagree. There are ways to deal with these. Obviously a sword specialist shouldn't be equal to a generalist if he can't use a sword. However, the sword specialist should be able to use a sword in just about any situation you can imagine, because he's so good with...

I am playing a slayer, because Cleave seems like the best maneuver of the group by far when pretty much everything dies in one hit. Unfortunately even if I was playing protector I wouldn't have had a lot of opportunities to use Protect because of initiative rolls. I kinda miss improved...

Having played in at least 3E/4E's takes on this I must say I don't buy it, really. There's no reason why the potential power gain should become mandatory. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it is perfectly possible to make there be a legitimate trade-off that could or could not...

This is a surprisingly easy question. In addition to what others have said, there are two things that I'd like to see in particular: 1. More emphasis on the tactical aspects of combat, particularly positioning. Right now I'm playing a Fighter in the Reclaiming Blingdenstone adventure, and...

What elements do you think they could include to attract the so-called "old school" crowd, then? Note, I am not asking what elements that they should exclude to get the attention of old school fans. At this point exclusion is cutting off the nose to spite the face. I am just curious as what...

I don't really understand this post. What about Glancing Blow, in particular, has to do with the fighter class as being "simple" or "complex?"

Well, I like the mechanical tricks that are tired to particular weapons, from a flavor perspective. They're neat. As for weapon-swapping from a greataxe to a throwing axe, there's not necessarily any more penalty than normal if you have the specialization apply to weapon groups rather than...

I'm a bit alarmed by the concept of a "simpler" fighter. Is the current fighter not "simple" enough? I for one have been playing one in a playtest for a while now and I find the experience somewhat mind-numbing. I stand in one place and hit stuff with my weapon... wow... really engaging. I...

Well, speak for yourself. I'm perfectly fine with having a fighter who wields nothing but axes (let's say the greataxe with the occasional throwing axe thrown in for a ranged option) for the entirely of his adventuring career. I think that is a "fun" achetype for play because I don't necessarily...

I believe there is certainly design space, and play should support, a player who wishes to specialize in a particular kind of weapon. The fighter seems like the correct class for the job, but I agree that it should not be necessarily mandatory.

Well, your original post said "not much risk and much more advantage," which I strongly disagree with except in very specific situations. My games have shown me that actions are a far more valuable resource than HP, and potentially losing actions is a very big deal. And a very quick way to see...

This is actually not very true, because by necessity a PC that drops below 0 will at the very least fall prone, and thus need to use a move action to stand back up. It also ends stances and certain other effects like defender aura and marks when a PC is knocked unconscious. Plus, if the healer...

I dunno, it doesn't sound much like an "adventure" to me if you spend most of it laying around. It certainly doesn't fit into my idea of "heroic fantasy," though I understand for many DnD perhaps isn't all about that.

Is anyone other than me alarmed by how... overly complicated magical items seem to be, when compared to the rest of the rules so far? Holy smokes, look at all those properties! ...do we really need a "gleaming" property...?