Search results

That right there's always been the problem for the Fighter. Everytime he gets a unique mechanic beyond "more feats," people start demanding every other class gets it. That said, multiple attacks don't really slow the game down all that much more than the Wizard looking through his 20 spells...

Meh, Wizards are already superheroes by level 5, I don't see the issue with the Fighter also being one.

Which is why I explicitly said I was referring to 3.x.

Up until 3.x anyways, where you're basically shooting yourself in the kneecaps if you're playing a non-caster class.

I mean the "gamey" sort of roles, they've always been around, just never outright labeled. The Fighter, being the guy with heavy armor and all the hit points, was always meant to be the party tank, and D&D is where a lot of modern video games got the whole "tank" idea in the first place...

Welcome to all of D&D. If you have a problem with it, I have a feeling Next isn't the game you're looking for.

Arguably. Monks were pretty weaksauce in 3.P.

This seemed relevant.

And that's always been one of D&D's biggest failings and why I've stayed away from it until 4e.

Or three: Because they didn't take any DoaM options. Otherwise why can't the Fighter do more damage from behind? WHy can't the Rogue get angry in combat? Why can't the Barbarian use Second Wind? Short answer: Because they either didn't take or don't have those mechanic choices. Damage on a...

Here's the things I've heard D&DNext be condemned for... "It's too much like 1e" "It's not enough like 1e" "It's too much like 2e" "It's not enough like 2e" "It's too much like 3.x" "It's not enough like 3.x" "It's too much like 4e" "It's not enough like 4e" Arguably, if you're seeing too much...

Or they dodge your blow but still get taxed by the effort Or you didn't hit them as hard as you'd like but dented their armor/winded them slightly Or you missed, but nicked their face slightly. Or any other number of reasons. Your inability to work DoaM into the narrative doesn't mean the...

So again, Damage on a Miss makes fine narrative sense in that case.

So Plate Armor makes you more mobile and dodgier? Or you mean "hit" as in "rolled at or above target AC", in which case Damage on a Miss doesn't change this at all.

Arguably. I prefer levels being equal among classes(ex, a 10th level Fighter is about on par with a 10th level Wizard is about on par with a 10th level Barbarian, etc).

I can't see score requirements being much of a balancing factor though, since they mean the only characters able to multiclass into that class are the ones in the best position to cheese it.

The role structure has always existed in D&D. 4e was just the first time it actually listed it. So it's not YOUR definition of traditional then, which is a pretty meaningless way of putting it. Ask a group of 10 people what's traditional for D&D and you'll get about 14 different answers.

Sorry, I misread that, I assumed Zard was complaining about martial classes being spellcasters again.

Though no edition of D&D has done this, so you seem to be making a complaint that's looking for a problem.