Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9216301" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Well, D&D in general has "damage on a miss" in the sense that it's always had "save for half damage".  Remember that 4E was also making Fireball an attack roll against Reflex and "half damage on a miss" at the exact same time as it was letting Fighters also have a 5th level daily power (like Fireball) which did half damage on a miss. EDIT: Actually, I went to edit this to specify a power name and was reminded that they DIDN'T give Fighters a half damage on a miss Daily in the PH1, at least not until 15th level!  The lower level Dailies instead have the Reliable keyword, so you don't expend the power if you miss with it, rather than giving them half damage on a miss.  Rangers and Rogues do get a couple of half damage on a miss options at 5th, though. Using that "Reliable" keyword instead definitely seems like a nod to keeping Fighters a little different in feel.Some of this is compounded by the overall shift to how attacks worked and the aligning of magical and non-magical attacks to work the same.I don't find minions generally more disturbing to my suspension of disbelief than Evasion giving creatures/PCs "save for no damage" against a Fireball.  Saving Throws in general have always required the DM/players to tweak the narrative to explain how exactly the victim mitigated the damage, as Gary colorfully illustrated in the 1E DMG with the example of the fighter chained to the rock vs. the dragon's breath.  For me "damage on a miss" requires no more mental exertion than saving throws.  YMMV, of course.I find it to be more a difference of degree than kind. Classes are about as hard-coded in their roles in 4E as 5E.  4E is just more explicit and clear about it.  Both allow you to branch out from your role.  4E again supported this more clearly and explicitly by talking in black and white about secondary roles for classes and making it clear what kind of powers to take or how to multiclass if you wanted your character to focus more or less on another role.  Fighters could be built with varying degrees of focus on damage vs being hard to kill, for example.  My first 4E Fighter was extremely mobile, and pushed a little into Striker territory in that way.It shows up a bit in Heroic tier.  As Riggs is reported as having mentioned in the seminar, apparently a lot of monster HP were inflated at the last minute on original release, which led to an issue folks sometimes called the "padded sumo" effect, where PCs would burn out their Encounters and possibly Dailies while the monster still had a lot of HP, and the combat would become unnecessarily prolonged as they whittled the monster down using At Wills.  A common house rule for MM1 monsters is to buff their damage and reduce their HP.The folks I played 2E with a ton in the 90s were big battlemap fans for the reasons folks have talked about in the last couple of pages. Eliminating disputes about positioning in TotM games.  We mostly used hex grid battlemaps in 2E, but we used rules for attacks of opportunity, had our own rule for flanking, etc.Yup.  You can definitely build Fighters to be more focused on damage and less on being tough as nails.  Striker is a secondary role for them.  And of course the Essentials line introduced the Slayer as a simplified variant Fighter focused more on damage dealing (while still tough) specifically to cater to the folks who loved the Classic Fighter.For me, the 4E Fighter was the first time I ever enjoyed playing a single-classed Fighter.  I was an inveterate multi-class fan in AD&D.  4E giving me, as a Fighter player, as many options and toys and ways to be cool as a spellcaster has was revelatory.</blockquote>

Verification