Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5925741" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'd assumed that the extra damage came from the two handed weapon multiplying strength by 1.5 (and rounding up) - otherwise as they stand two handed weapons are terrible.&nbsp; If it is true that the fighter gets an extra free +2This.&nbsp; Over at rpg.net I suggested if they want that retro feel they seem to, they take things all the way and give the fighter 2e Weapon Specialisation.&nbsp; This means an extra attack every two rounds.This.&nbsp; The fighter's abilities are all about fighting.&nbsp; He doesn't have the flexibility of a caster.&nbsp; Which means he either needs to control the battle or kick arse and take names in a way no one else can.&nbsp; (Counting e.g. Barbarians as Fighters).&nbsp; If the fighter is simple as planned and wants to hang in there with people with the flexibility of Gygaxo-Vancian casters he needs to be around the power of at least a cleric and a half in combat.This goes double if the game is set up so you want to avoid combat.&nbsp; As with a dozen rats all with advantage, or dozens of kobolds with advantage.Really?&nbsp; Because 4e had better balance than that.&nbsp; 2e had better balance than that - for that matter so did Unearthed Arcana.&nbsp; The Weapon Specialist there could kick arse and take names like no other class.&nbsp; When the only thing you are good at is fighting then you need to be damn good at it.And has been explained above the issue isn't that the cleric is about as good as the fighter at combat.&nbsp; The issue is that the Fighter, who specialises in fighting can't kick the cleric's arse up round his ears at what he is supposedly specialising in and can't even play in the same league at anything else.&nbsp; This isn't a failure of balance.&nbsp; It's a failure of fundamental concept.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5925741, member: 87792"] I'd assumed that the extra damage came from the two handed weapon multiplying strength by 1.5 (and rounding up) - otherwise as they stand two handed weapons are [I]terrible[/I]. If it is true that the fighter gets an extra free +2 This. Over at rpg.net I suggested if they want that retro feel they seem to, they take things all the way and give the fighter [I]2e Weapon Specialisation[/I]. This means an extra attack every two rounds. This. The fighter's abilities are [I]all about fighting[/I]. He doesn't have the flexibility of a caster. Which means he either needs to control the battle or kick arse and take names in a way no one else can. (Counting e.g. Barbarians as Fighters). If the fighter is simple as planned and wants to hang in there with people with the flexibility of Gygaxo-Vancian casters he needs to be around the power of at least a cleric and a half in combat. This goes double if the game is set up so you want to [I]avoid [/I]combat. As with a dozen rats all with advantage, or dozens of kobolds with advantage. Really? Because 4e had better balance than that. [I]2e[/I] had better balance than that - for that matter so did [I]Unearthed Arcana[/I]. The Weapon Specialist there could kick arse and take names like no other class. When the only thing you are good at is fighting then you need to be [I]damn[/I] good at it. And has been explained above the issue isn't that the cleric is about as good as the fighter at combat. The issue is that the [I]Fighter[/I], who specialises in [I]fighting [/I]can't kick the cleric's arse up round his ears at what he is [I]supposedly[/I] specialising in and can't even play in the same league at anything else. This isn't a failure of balance. It's a failure of fundamental concept. [/QUOTE]

Verification