Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6195513" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>They're both correct for different reasons. </p><p></p><p>To TwoSix's point:</p><p></p><p>- Martial characters' (except those built around specific, niche builds) max payload being premised upon deployment of a Full Attack Action creates a progressive (scaling with level; BAB + knock on effects like Haste/Speed, extra d6 through feats/features/magic items) scenario where mobility (dynamism) is crowded out for the sake of potency. If 3.x had a robust forced movement and terrain interaction (with big damage riders and effects by forcing foes into hazards and hindering terrain), this situation would be mitigated. Alas, it does not. So, as the paradigm goes, as you get more powerful, the greater the impetus to get in melee range, stay in melee range and deploy a Full Attack Action.</p><p></p><p>To your point:</p><p></p><p>- You're already working with lack of unity in PC resource scheduling (steady, At-Will deployment versus nova, spikey, Dailies). The disunity of the max payload:action economy twixt Martial PCs and spellcaster PCs adds another lair of balance incoherence that must be navigated. Whats more, it creates a sort of disjointed rocket tag scenario where Martial characters are trying to win initiative, get in melee range with a Standard Action and then deploy a nova Full Attack Action on the next, and subsequent, round(s)...whereas spellcasters can nova based off of their primary engagement with the action economy and they still have their movement action to boot. Thus, the general engagement of the 3.x action economy by spellcasters yields Spellcaster as Skirmisher while Martial characters (who should be the Skirmishers) turn into Rock-em, Sock-em Robots...entering melee and hacking away...possibly fishing for crits or trip check riders...until one side is dead. Furthering the problem are effects/conditions (such as Slow), that disallow Full Round Actions but still allow Standards. I'm pretty sure you can extrapolate how loss of Full Round Actions affects Martial characters versus Spellcasters. Outside of a few obscure, single-use, obnoxiously expensive poisons, guess who has primary access to such effects...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6195513, member: 6696971"] They're both correct for different reasons. To TwoSix's point: - Martial characters' (except those built around specific, niche builds) max payload being premised upon deployment of a Full Attack Action creates a progressive (scaling with level; BAB + knock on effects like Haste/Speed, extra d6 through feats/features/magic items) scenario where mobility (dynamism) is crowded out for the sake of potency. If 3.x had a robust forced movement and terrain interaction (with big damage riders and effects by forcing foes into hazards and hindering terrain), this situation would be mitigated. Alas, it does not. So, as the paradigm goes, as you get more powerful, the greater the impetus to get in melee range, stay in melee range and deploy a Full Attack Action. To your point: - You're already working with lack of unity in PC resource scheduling (steady, At-Will deployment versus nova, spikey, Dailies). The disunity of the max payload:action economy twixt Martial PCs and spellcaster PCs adds another lair of balance incoherence that must be navigated. Whats more, it creates a sort of disjointed rocket tag scenario where Martial characters are trying to win initiative, get in melee range with a Standard Action and then deploy a nova Full Attack Action on the next, and subsequent, round(s)...whereas spellcasters can nova based off of their primary engagement with the action economy and they still have their movement action to boot. Thus, the general engagement of the 3.x action economy by spellcasters yields Spellcaster as Skirmisher while Martial characters (who should be the Skirmishers) turn into Rock-em, Sock-em Robots...entering melee and hacking away...possibly fishing for crits or trip check riders...until one side is dead. Furthering the problem are effects/conditions (such as Slow), that disallow Full Round Actions but still allow Standards. I'm pretty sure you can extrapolate how loss of Full Round Actions affects Martial characters versus Spellcasters. Outside of a few obscure, single-use, obnoxiously expensive poisons, guess who has primary access to such effects... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
Top