Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5509751" data-attributes="member: 87792">Depends on the poison.&nbsp; Clouds of gas don't have this problem.&nbsp; Blade venoms will hit the barbarian more than the rogue.&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed.&nbsp; The 4e Combat Magic/Ritual Casting separation is IMO the closest D&amp;D magic has ever been to something like this - but it's only just starting out.&nbsp;&nbsp;For some values of mundane that include James Bond and John McClain.&nbsp;&nbsp;And martial stuff is more obvious than arcane in 4e.&nbsp; Also have you seen the Essentials martial classes?&nbsp;&nbsp;An issue, I agree. One trick I use is to tinker with what's required for an extended rest to make it more ... extended and supplement this with magical sources. (In practice it's little different to 3e with cheap wands of CLW).&nbsp;&nbsp;In practice in my experience there are three basic types of poison. Assassins poisons are PC only. Combat poisons do hit point damage - and wizards have both fewer hit points and fewer healing surges than barbarians, meaning that if the poison does the same amount of damage (as on average they do), the wizard has only about two thirds the hit points of the barbarian, meaning he needs to spend 50% more healing surges to recover. And has fewer to start with - it hits him much harder. The other type of poison is long term debilitating poison (using the poison/disease track) and that's based on Endurance. Now it's possible for a wizard to have a higher con than a barbarian and thus a better chance of recovering assuming the barbarian isn't trained in Endurance. But that means that the wizard isn't that puny and the Barbarian's muscle-bound. Normally the barbarian will recover at least as fast. So your argument to me oversimplifies matters - and it's that oversimplification that produces the result you don't like when in practice what you want happens.&nbsp;&nbsp;You're saying that people don't get physically effected by fighting in melee combat? Seriously?&nbsp;&nbsp;He isn't. He's learning to use his minor magic to shift things around more effectively.&nbsp;&nbsp;Intelligence is what you use when you don't have knowledge. He's seen similar situations before. The tenth level barbarian's knowledge of the finer points of theology might be shaky, but he knows a lot more than the first level cleric about temples to dark gods through having knocked a few over.&nbsp;&nbsp;Why not? They don't matter one way or the other.&nbsp;&nbsp;Find a simple one...&nbsp;&nbsp;For me it's asking what the PCs are trying to do and then evaluating.&nbsp;&nbsp;Have you seen the Knight and the Slayer? I think they are almost exactly what you are looking for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5509751, member: 87792"] Depends on the poison. Clouds of gas don't have this problem. Blade venoms will hit the barbarian more than the rogue. Indeed. The 4e Combat Magic/Ritual Casting separation is IMO the closest D&D magic has ever been to something like this - but it's only just starting out. For some values of mundane that include James Bond and John McClain. And martial stuff is more obvious than arcane in 4e. Also have you seen the Essentials martial classes? An issue, I agree. One trick I use is to tinker with what's required for an extended rest to make it more ... extended and supplement this with magical sources. (In practice it's little different to 3e with cheap wands of CLW). In practice in my experience there are three basic types of poison. Assassins poisons are PC only. Combat poisons do hit point damage - and wizards have both fewer hit points and fewer healing surges than barbarians, meaning that if the poison does the same amount of damage (as on average they do), the wizard has only about two thirds the hit points of the barbarian, meaning he needs to spend 50% more healing surges to recover. And has fewer to start with - it hits him much harder. The other type of poison is long term debilitating poison (using the poison/disease track) and that's based on Endurance. Now it's possible for a wizard to have a higher con than a barbarian and thus a better chance of recovering assuming the barbarian isn't trained in Endurance. But that means that the wizard isn't [I]that[/I] puny and the Barbarian's muscle-bound. Normally the barbarian will recover at least as fast. So your argument to me oversimplifies matters - and it's that oversimplification that produces the result you don't like when in practice what you want happens. You're saying that people don't get physically effected by fighting in melee combat? Seriously? He isn't. He's learning to use his minor magic to shift things around more effectively. Intelligence is what you use when you don't have knowledge. He's seen similar situations before. The tenth level barbarian's knowledge of the finer points of theology might be shaky, but he knows a lot more than the first level cleric about temples to dark gods through having knocked a few over. Why not? They don't matter one way or the other. Find a simple one... For me it's asking what the PCs are trying to do and then evaluating. Have you seen the Knight and the Slayer? I think they are almost exactly what you are looking for. [/QUOTE]

Verification