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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6194060" data-attributes="member: 17106">Hey, I'd go for that. But any rational approach to this topic requires eliminating/replacing hit points, and introducing a so-called "death spiral" for the victim. Some people really dislike that stuff. I'm not one of those people. If you want to ask why D&D doesn't let you decapitate someone with a sword or parry or stun, etc., you'll have to ask someone other than me.All of that stuff falls under general combat mechanics rather than specific class abilities, but there's every reason to make a martial character very good at doing those things if the system describes those things in the first place.I think the highest level druid I played was around level 8 or so. He had a respectable animal companion, but it certainly was no substitute for whatever martial characters we had. Nor were his wild shape forms good enough to use for combat purposes. I spent a lot of spells buffing my crocodile.I did run a druid/shifter once who did own in melee, but that was in my early days and I admittedly mangled the RAI and probably the RAW to do it.Druids for other players in my group have gone 1-20 and well into epic, (as have members of several other classes). In my game at level 37-38 or so, the fighter was probably the most effective character and was the focal point of a group that had at least a druid and a sorcerer IIRC. The last extended campaign I ran had a druid, a ranger, and a wizard, and went to level 8, and again, the ranger was the focal point, and the casters were useful but hardly dominant support characters.I'm aware that spellcasters stand to gain more stuff on their character sheet from advancing than martial characters, but you're way overstating how it plays out.But not a fair analogy. If any mortal man could cast spells, they wouldn't be very magical. Any player can choose a spellcaster, but the classes are always written with in-game barriers to access (training, bloodlines, divine patrons, etc.).But what if it does make the warrior worthless in some circumstances? So what? I'm thinking of the famous Indiana Jones scene where the sword fighter makes his huge display and gets gunned down in a single shot. Technology simply beats skill in this circumstance. It doesn't matter how long that warrior trains, he doesn't "earn" the right to dodge a bullet. And I sincerely hope that wizardry offers more powerful outcomes that firearms do!(Quick check, how would that scene play out using the PF firearm rules? Uh, not so well. PF is way too "game-y" in this regard.)And yes, I would say that a fighter who faces supernatural forces that are beyond his capabilities and fails when measured against them is very heroic.The measure of the fighter class is how good of a fighter it is, not how it compares to a fundamentally different class.In that case, what you want is unreasonable. Magic is by definition beyond what is normal. If things that aren't magic are as extraordinary as things that are magic, then the magic isn't magic.This is at least somewhat fair. The spells per day expand way too much, and they should be a more meaningful limitation than they are.Don't know what that is, but okay.Certainly, any fighter that is as vulnerable to fear as a noncombatant commoner needs some revision on that count.Fall from the sky, reach terminal velocity, hit the ground, and survive. Kill a thousand orcs by himself. Smash a lich's adamantine phylactery with one blow. Defeat a golem without using cheesy noncore spells that ignore SR. Be revered as a war hero.These things are not nothing!***Is there room to revise the classes? Sure. I rewrote the fighter myself for my game, based on the PF version, adding new mechanics (to some extent along the lines of what   [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] was getting at). I just don't think the Bo9S version is the way to go.</blockquote>

Verification