Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1195846" data-attributes="member: 151">Well, truthfully, in my mind, the archetype would be closer to that 1st level fighter getting a critical against the 10th level fighter, which would require 2 natural 20s, but your point is taken.  However, as is being discussed in another thread, the relation between fiction, cinema and game should not be drawntoo closely, as there are necessary differences.  But that's another argument.  I think this is an example of where an action/hero point system would be a better model, perhaps.   Understood...but how would you address the counter-problem this would generate?  That is to say, if high-init charaters are so favored, how do the low-init characters survive?  This would essentially force everyone to make DEX their secondary stat, if not their primary.  If the wizard, druid and cleric are always penalized unless they have a high DEX, you're going to start seeing a generalized move towards speed, and now the tank and brute archetypes become far less desirable.  Which isn't to say that such a system couldn't be implemented, just that you should account for the changes...as much as the monk might need some buffing up, this wouldn't be my preference.  Your idea also would reward the archer, who already has a high dex.  Enhancing the melee DEX fighter inadvertantly benefits the ranged one, as well, further weakening the melee STR fighter, IMHO.  Sure you can.  From the SRD: "You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon."  Even with a BAB under 5, you can make the extra attack, and you don't need a full attack action to do so.  The disadvantage is that HUGE penalties involved, making it a potentially poor choice.  Without the feats, it's -6/-10 when doing the attack, unless you're using light weapons, in which case it's -4/-8.  With the TWF feat, it becomes -4/-4 or -2/-2 with TWF AND a light weapon. Running in, slashing with cutlass and dagger and then backing away is EXACTLY what this is designed to do.  A normal fighter could get this ability by 5th or 6th level, iirc.  A ranger certainly could do this and get improved two weapon fighting at 6th, I believe.   I would disagree.  Conceptually, it's meant to represent a strike to the vitals when they're unguarded.  Again, from the SRD: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."   You see the 'unable to defend himself' clause as the emphasis, I see the 'vital spot' as the more relevant.  You could argue it is both with merit, but I cite the fact that only creatures with discernible anatomies and that are living as proof that it's more an issue of precision.  If it were a more mobility-based ability, a golem would be vulnearble at the joints or a zombie at the throat, eyes or achilles tendon, and thus technically just as vulnerable.  Granted, 3E doesn't model damage that way, but I would still argue that it was intended to model the 'vitals' idea.  In truth, a hybrid may be the actual intent.   Well, Monte disagrees with the other deisgners of 3E on several points.  I value his opinion, but I don't always agree with him...any more than I always agree with SKR, Jon Tweet, Andy Collins or any of the others.  His opinion is just that, an opinion.  That said, I haven't really flipped through the AU book yet, (soon, though).  However, my cursory inspection of it shows that Monte is much more concerned with shifting the emphasis on offense in 3E (not a bad thing, IMHO).  Considering that the unfettered, snake totem warrior and Warmain can all concievably reach ACs in the 40s, that's not hard to believe.  But, quite honestly, this is true in D&D, as well, if that's your goal.  Just ask the Arcane Archer in my group, who has a touch AC of about 32 or so. One thing that shouldn't be ignored about DEX's value is that it provides defense against touch attacks, something DEX-based warriors need to defend against high-level spells.  Many spells require touch attacks, and slow tank warriors have very poor touch ACs.  The FTR/SOR/AA in my group is light and fast, and she is rarely subject to such spells, whereas the Paladin is a sitting duck for them (although his powerful saves and SR carrry him through).  Against spells like Harm, this is important at high levels.  Against things like shadows and draining attacks, it's important at all levels. And while I'm unfamiliar with AU's design, I got the impression that the base combat options were not significantly different from 3E, so that the options you're looking for (such as init working differently, dash-in/out attacks and the like) won't be there, either.  Well, as I mentioned above, it's not impossible.  But you're right...it is not easy to do, particularly at low levels.  It requires a feat chain to do what you want from even 1st level, potentially, and the system isn't designed to do that.  I concede the point that D&D 3E doesn't encourage or easily give you the type of combat you're looking for.</blockquote>

Verification