Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5956772" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'm trying to destry the stupid 'samey' argument once and for all.  Because they really aren't.  And the problem I have is that full attack normally is pretty samey to me.  So is move-and-only-ordinary-attack. And several reasons:1: Tactics 101 - the earlier you kill something the less often it gets to hit back.  If you've a good guess that a monster isn't a minion (and you normally do) you want to unload on it fast. 2: Early control keeps monsters out of the fight which might as well be a stun.  If the Hunter uses Disruptive Shot to immobilise an ogre before the ogre has acted, the ogre is more or less irrelevant (save ends).  And likewise any power that blocks the monsters from entering the fight like a wall. 3: One of the best ways to tell if monsters are minions is drop a large AoE or multitarget attack or multitarget attack on them (Enlarged Orbmaster's Incendiary Detonation is a favourite of mine - burst 2 and will knock prone anything that's not a minion - see the point about control above) and early on you won't cause Friendly Fire. 4: Certain powers power you up for a big fight (Armour of Agathys, Rain of Steel, and Flaming Sphere come to mind).  Use early or probably not at all. 5: Certain powers are opportunist interrupts.  I use Powerful Warning from a Warlord as soon as there's a close hit because I don't know when I'm next going to be able to negate a hit. 6: Opportunities.  If the enemy are too close to [Dangerous terrain feature], you use the biggest way you have of pushing them all into it.  With a versatile power list you won't necessarily want the at wills as you have better. Third degree burns are nasty.  You need superhuman resilience to survive a dragon's breath or fireball at all.  A low powered fighter might be able to kill, but can't survive.  Flip it on its back.  Then ask it to tell you which leg comes after which...  In 4e some creatures are immune to some attacks or conditions.  But this is a specific (and very rare) property of the creature.   This is a strawman.  What they are responsible for is keeping fighters something approaching interesting to a vaguely tactical player other than being a power fantasy.  There are only so many ways to say "I poke him with my sword" without going into a dissertation on historical fencing.  But their class is how they interact with the world.  All casting classes become superhuman from their class.  Why this insistance that Fighters Don't Get Cool Stuff (when all casters do)?  Why do you want to make the fighter a non-viable class?  "What they should have in a DnD RPG game" is precisely what we are arguing about.  If they want to fight the Hydra, they should have abilities like the person who fought the hydra in myth and legend.  If they want to fight a dragon they should have abilities to avoid being crisped.And above all, if they want to be taken seriously, they should have sufficient abilities to stand up to a wizard or cleric of equal level.    To do that they need to be effectively supernatural.  Celtic myth, greek myth, Faerie Queene, or Orlando Furioso level.  What they do not need to be is mundane when thought to be equivalent to someone who can cast Wish in 6 seconds.  Magic in 4e is more than powerful enough.  I've retired a 4th level wizard in 4e for being more than the DM could handle.  And I'd argue that outside combat the mage is the most powerful class (the thief and the bard might disagree).  But apparently this is unacceptably weak to many.  So you want to reduce the mage?  My 4e experience tells me that the amount of complaining that will lead to is ... immense.  This sounds like a vast social issue at the table.  To hear you tell it, your fighter is hogging the spotlight, refusing to do cleanup, and you both know that the Wizard could do the fighter's job by killing the BBEG but the fighter couldn't do the wizard's.  So your fighter is bullying the wizard and the wizard is frustrated because he is being bullied. Because "Hit someone with a sword repeatedly and fast" is the same kind of power as "summon the winds to throw the guards back in their guardrooms and slam the doors after them"?  (See my example above).  If that's your standard for the same kinds of powers there's not much I can say or do.  Oh, possibly.  But this doesn't change that they are still arguably the most powerful class in 4e both in combat and out - it's just close in both cases.  If they were brought down more than a notch that is because they needed to be brought down more than a notch. As the effects are nothing like each other (see above) I can only conclude that the complaint is that they were brought down enough notches to bring them in line with a powered up fighter.   The default setting for 3.X allows the wizard to cast spells in 6 seconds with no chance of failure.  That's extremely high as it is.  4e is, if anything, lower. This is not a trap.  This is balance.  I don't mind playing WFRP where you can't heave cinder blocks 30 yards - and spellcasting is frought with danger.  I don't mind fighters being larger than life and wizards being able to cast spells in 6 seconds with no chance of failure.  But you need wzards and fighters to be in the same game.  However if you try to do this in D&D you get them called 'samey'.  Then stop arguing for one please.  Or argue that all wizards should get blowback on their spells.  Because you need to take the wizard down about another three notches after 4e to get it to the level of the fighters you want.  Basically you need to either make wizard spells take a long time to cast  (so utterly non-viable in combat)  or always come with blowback a la WHFRP (2e or 3e) or DCC.  I say potato you say potato.  Martial isn't "limited by a source".  It's a description.</blockquote>

Verification