Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pickles JG" data-source="post: 5950279" data-attributes="member: 61501">1) I would rather roll vs fixed &quot;DC&quot; of 10 plus the dex. It makes the outcome less random &amp; it is IME a bit faster. Its hardly a deal breaker &amp; it is spliting hairs to bicker over D20+dex vs 10 + dex but there you go.&nbsp;2) If the under table sliding is a narrative option why is the fighter having to make 2 extra rolls to suceed? If he was getting some benefit from the manoevre (advantage for his unusual attack vector or the extra distance in a slippery situation or avoiding OAs by being under the table) then fair enough. If he is just using a cool description then mechanically it is just moving &amp; attacking. Players should not be penalised for cool descriptions, provided these are adding to the game not just dragging it to a crawl.&nbsp;3) I am sure there will be multiple ways of doing the same thing. You seem to have demonstrated that one way is strict RAW &amp; the other way is DM fiat &amp; I am not convinced that the latter is simpler or faster in practice or anything to do with fighters qua fighters.&nbsp;I do agree with the sentiment you express though&nbsp;If they can balance a wizard with a simple fighter then I am sure they can balance a simple fighter with a complex one but without 4es strict frameworks it's an unproven &quot;if&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pickles JG, post: 5950279, member: 61501"] 1) I would rather roll vs fixed "DC" of 10 plus the dex. It makes the outcome less random & it is IME a bit faster. Its hardly a deal breaker & it is spliting hairs to bicker over D20+dex vs 10 + dex but there you go. 2) If the under table sliding is a narrative option why is the fighter having to make 2 extra rolls to suceed? If he was getting some benefit from the manoevre (advantage for his unusual attack vector or the extra distance in a slippery situation or avoiding OAs by being under the table) then fair enough. If he is just using a cool description then mechanically it is just moving & attacking. Players should not be penalised for cool descriptions, provided these are adding to the game not just dragging it to a crawl. 3) I am sure there will be multiple ways of doing the same thing. You seem to have demonstrated that one way is strict RAW & the other way is DM fiat & I am not convinced that the latter is simpler or faster in practice or anything to do with fighters qua fighters. I do agree with the sentiment you express though If they can balance a wizard with a simple fighter then I am sure they can balance a simple fighter with a complex one but without 4es strict frameworks it's an unproven "if" [/QUOTE]

Verification