Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7193729" data-attributes="member: 20323">[MENTION=81242]Lost Soul[/MENTION] I disagree with several things you assume. But basically this boils down to expectations.I have an expectation, after playing BD&D and AD&D, that fighters should be more accurate than others characters.In AD&D this comes from the way the <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1BFhlrAlLfo/UdXsFdXbp4I/AAAAAAAAVVU/4UaIbo7Gwpg/s767/1st+Edition+ADnD+Attack+and+Assassination+Tables.jpg" target="_blank">attack matrix</a> was set up, where the Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Bard table surpassed the others by 5% to 30% (the degree increasing with level).In BD&D this comes from the attack matrix as well, where the margin of the fighter's lead was more consistently +5% to +10% above other classes, though the extra Weapon Mastery options fighters received could increase this difference with increasing level.There are 3 reasons why a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster:1) First, a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster because some spells have area effects – meaning that even if there's less chance of hitting one target, there is a greater chance of hitting some targets – whereas attacks are single-target. Extra Attack bridges this very slightly, but still can't match spells like fireball or cloudkill in the sheer number of targets that can be caught in the spell's effect.2) Another reason a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster is that failing a saving throw can have *much* more dire consequences than any single attack from a fighter. Increasing the save DC vs. flesh to stone would be *much* more powerful that increasing the chance to hit for a fighter.3) Third, a fighter should have improved accuracy over a spellcaster because many damaging spells that require a save still deal half damage even if the save is successful. No fighter attack can do that.Yes, I'd be averse. For the reason mentioned above. Spells requiring saves often target multiple creatures, have dire consequences for failing the save, or deal half damage on a successful save.Don't know where you're getting that assumption from. A +1 to damage means just that. +1 to damage. Not +2 for a greatsword dealing 2d6. Not +3 if somehow the fighter deals 3d8 with his longsword.If anything, that's an argument against the Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter feats. That's a whole other ball of wax. Most gamers I know tweak those feats with a variety of online options or impose limits on their use (e.g. -5 can't be mitigated by bless/bardic inspiration).Personally, I have no problem with the Archery fighting talent as is.I do look, and I am confident I'm not doing what you're concerned about.There's nothing frivolous about my approach. Take a look at what I'm doing again, there's lots of fun options.</blockquote>

Verification