Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kraydak" data-source="post: 5973805" data-attributes="member: 12306">3e is in many ways mechanically superior.&nbsp; I like 3e.&nbsp; I also think that the designers really didn't grasp how extreme the net effect of their changes was going to be.&nbsp; That said, if your list of class abilities includes &quot;Dominate&quot; and &quot;Finger of Death&quot;, you don't get to complain if your enemies usually save, or if getting those abilities off successfully is hard.&nbsp; Deal with it.&nbsp; There are some other options: there could be an execute range, with some spells imposing a -5 or more to saves if the target is below a certain fraction of their hp.&nbsp; But fundamentally, if your spells are scary, they need to be tricky to get to land for there to be any balance beyond eggshells armed with hammers.&nbsp; No way around that.Fighters with Dailies completely breaks any sense of immersion for me.&nbsp; *Talking* to someone should not deplete my *fighting* resources.&nbsp; Nor should I only be able to perform certain maneuvers a few times a day (Bo9S maneuvers however do work, because of the refresh mechanics).&nbsp; That isn't to say you couldn't come up with a Vancian-Fighter concept.&nbsp; There will be one in DnD Next.&nbsp; Eventually.&nbsp; But take your 3 or 3.5e PHB, and your Bo9S, and put the pages next to each other (for Bo9S, only through the end of the maneuvers).&nbsp; See how thick it is?&nbsp; There is barely room for Clerics and Wizards in the PHB (along with a very, very few iconic abilities for Paladins, Rangers and Bards, who mostly eat at the Clerics/Wizards table).&nbsp; Adding Vancian Fighter and Rogues?&nbsp; Not to mention Barbarians?&nbsp; Not going to happen.The task in front of WotC right now is the non-Vancian fighter.&nbsp; It is popular, and frankly, they don't have room or balancing time for anything else.&nbsp; If you want to influence the designers' view of Fighters, non-Vancian is it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kraydak, post: 5973805, member: 12306"] 3e is in many ways mechanically superior. I like 3e. I also think that the designers really didn't grasp how extreme the net effect of their changes was going to be. That said, if your list of class abilities includes "Dominate" and "Finger of Death", you don't get to complain if your enemies usually save, or if getting those abilities off successfully is hard. Deal with it. There are some other options: there could be an execute range, with some spells imposing a -5 or more to saves if the target is below a certain fraction of their hp. But fundamentally, if your spells are scary, they need to be tricky to get to land for there to be any balance beyond eggshells armed with hammers. No way around that. Fighters with Dailies completely breaks any sense of immersion for me. *Talking* to someone should not deplete my *fighting* resources. Nor should I only be able to perform certain maneuvers a few times a day (Bo9S maneuvers however do work, because of the refresh mechanics). That isn't to say you couldn't come up with a Vancian-Fighter concept. There will be one in DnD Next. Eventually. But take your 3 or 3.5e PHB, and your Bo9S, and put the pages next to each other (for Bo9S, only through the end of the maneuvers). See how thick it is? There is barely room for Clerics and Wizards in the PHB (along with a very, very few iconic abilities for Paladins, Rangers and Bards, who mostly eat at the Clerics/Wizards table). Adding Vancian Fighter and Rogues? Not to mention Barbarians? Not going to happen. The task in front of WotC right now is the non-Vancian fighter. It is popular, and frankly, they don't have room or balancing time for anything else. If you want to influence the designers' view of Fighters, non-Vancian is it. [/QUOTE]

Verification