Fighter design goals . L&L April 30th

[dkyle]

I know, I was kidding... I guess pulling my special kidding face: wasn't enough though.

But back on subject, back in the day, there wasn't a barbarian class in D&D, there was a breserker class and I have no idea why they choose to rename it barbarian because being a breserker and being a barbarian are two different things IMO.

Warder

Probably so there was something easy to point to when someone wanted to play Conan. Even though Conan actually acts almost nothing like a D&D Barbarian...

 

[Janaxstrus]

I left it out because we've already had blogs from WotC talking about Save or Die effects, and questioning whether they might exist, how they might work, what they might do, and when they might get used. And those points had nothing to do with the design of the Fighter and the desire to make sure he can't "get killed" by the wizard.

If the blog was any indication, if SoD doesn't show up in the game it's because it was determined to not be a good game concept, not because they need to "protect" the precious fighter.

More strawman arguments.

Had they an article that said "The wizard can stand toe to to with the fighter, and cast spells through every attack the fighter can lay onto him", I'd have the same reaction.

No class should be able to stand in front of the wizard and "absorb the damage of, and throw offthe effects of" an entire wizard's spell arsenal for the day, shrug and then move on to killing the wizard.

No class should be able to stand in front of a fighter and let him beat on them for 15 rounds and then just shrug and move on.

No class should be able to absorb round after round of sneak attack/backstab and then just wink and take a nap.

 

[Libramarian]

I enjoy the trope (typical of many s&s novels) of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells and I heartily agree that the imbalance in 3/3.5e needs to be adjusted.

Which s&s novel would that be? Because when discussing save or die/save or lose I always think of the Conan story "The Scarlet Citadel" where Conan is killing hundreds of men on a battlefield, until the sorcerer Tsotha-lanti shows up and pricks him on the cheek, paralyzing him and taking him prisoner.

As I recall the sorcerer has a line like "Don't you know my magic is mightier than any sword?"

 

[ArmoredSaint]

The fighter being able to absorb everything the wizard can throw at him, being THAT much better than everyone else at fighting, is not ok.

So you'd prefer that the Wizard get to be THAT much better than everyone else? 'Cause that's what it sounds like you want in this statement:

No class should be able to stand there leaning on their weapon while a 20th level wizard lines him up for his entire spell lineup and then shrug and kill him.

Personally, I kind of hope for a sort of hybrid 3e/4e kind of fighter.

I'd rather see a sort of hybrid 1e/4e kind of Fighter...

 

[SkidAce]

It says he can take every spell a wizard can throw at him, and keep fighting. Not that he can win 50% of the time, or that he has to pin the wizard down or lose. It specifically said ALL of the wizards spells, and continue to fight.

Edit:
SORRY: failed to read rest of thread before replying to you....I understand better what you are saying now.


---------------------------------------------------------
So its your opinion that he meant a 1st level fighter could shrug off all the spells from a 20th level necromancer one on one and continue to fight?

IMO, I don't think they mean it that way...but everyone sees things differently...

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It sounds a little like 5E will lean toward Mythic Fantasy as a playstyle.

While I have played games in the past of that style and have also highly enjoyed them, I'm feeling as though that's not really what I'm looking for. 4th Edition does that already. I'm a bit unsure if the Durango's design team means the same thing by 'modularity' as what I wanted them to mean.

This right here! I don't want 4th edition's Mythic fantasy. I didn't like it then and I'm not going to like it in the future.

That should be one of many playstyles that are available, not the default.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Also sounds to me like they may be having separate building mechanics for creatures.

 

[Janaxstrus]

So you'd prefer that the Wizard get to be THAT much better than everyone else? 'Cause that's what it sounds like you want in this statement:

Not even a little. For me, I'd be happy with a fighter usually winning
However. the fighter stands there and let's the wizard empty both barrels (so to speak)? The wizard should win every time.

It doesn't have to be either the fighter wins every time OR the wizard wins everytime. The fighter not being the spell caddy is great, but not at the expense of making him unkillable vs a wizard.

There is a happy medium

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This is probably why we will just stick with Pathfinder. Our Wizards and Fighters have no problems and both have fun together.

 

[SageMinerve]

Some people keep failing their panic saving throws...