Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 3974635" data-attributes="member: 3146">This kind of rhetoric doesn't correspond to my experience playing fighters or fighter types at all--nor to my experience of what skilled players do with fighting characters. (Note that I don't say fighters not because fighters are a lame class, but rather because, IME, single class fighters are quite rare among the PCs I see when I run and play games. Some of the characters people play have more options than fighters, probably half of them have fewer tactical manuever style options than single classed fighters of the same level might have (multiclassing with barbarian will do that), but in any event using the single classed fighter to represent all melee combatants in D&D 3.x would be wildly inaccurate).I attack and manuever to be able to pull off my Rhino's Rush charge into a spot adjacent to two enemies, one of whom is injured so I'll be able to cleave into the other.I delay for the spellcaster to cast haste and then declare my dodge opponent as the aspect of Grazz't, manuever around the succubus  (scorning her attack of opportunity) but setting up so that when the aspect of Grazz't would get an AoO on me for closing with him, he will be flanking with the succubus and my Elusive Target feat will go off making him miss and hit the succubus, and giving me a free trip attack against him, and I can follow up by smiting him with a four point power attack.The target is surrounded by the barbarian, paladin, and the cleric, so I will bull rush him instead of attacking to generate three attacks of opportunity which may enable the barbarian to cleave into another bad guy/ I charge and hit him with my shield, Power Attacking for four points; if I hit that gives me the opportunity to knock him prone and he has to make a save or be dazed. The next round, I get 3/2 Power Attack because I charged and hit, so I will sunder his axe, cleaving sunder through to hit him, and hit him again so he'll have to make a fort save or be nauseated.3.x combat is only a dull repetition of single attack/full attack if you want it to be. Between positioning (where you can be flanked, where you can't be flanked, where you can be charged, where you can't, where you control the approaches to the spellcasters, where you don't, where you do flank, where you have cover from enemies with ranged attacks and where you don't, where you provide cover to enemies from your allies' ranged attacks, where you will be full attackable and where you won't, where you can cleave, what your cleave options are, etc) mathematical feats (Power Attack, Combt Expertise, Fight defensively, etc), attack options (grapple and trip being the most common followed by sunder, disarm, and bullrush), and feat granted options (combat brute, shock trooper, elusive target, shield charge, shield slam, intimidating strike, mad foam rager), class granted abilities (smite evil, spells (like Rhino's Rush, Strength of Stone, Knight's Move, deafening clang), hexblade's curse, marshal auras, knight's challenge, flurry of blows, rage etc), and equipment (bracers of the quick strike, weapon capsule retainers, cloak of the montebank, healing belt, etc), you have plenty of options to make combat interesting. Manuevers may seem cool to you, but if your experience of D&D 3.x melee combat is "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack" then you haven't scratched the surface of the tactical possibilities. And, if a designer is posting that, then they really don't understand the current edition of the game.</blockquote>

Verification