Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why different HD types for classes? (Another HP thread...)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7847271" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Doesn't let it off the hook. Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point. You don't need 4 tiers. A class feature for the fighter would be just fine. Yet there's plenty of modifiers and features and abilities and such based on class. It'd've been easier for a fan to accept that exploits and spells were different, then roll a new rev, but we went with rolling a new rev, because it had to be D&D for <em>EVERYONE</em>.</p><p> A fighter who's no better at hitting his target than the wizard feels different from one who is better.</p><p></p><p>Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance.</p><p>5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest. </p><p></p><p>It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e.</p><p></p><p>No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in <em>ad populum</em> right off my keyboard at this rate!</p><p></p><p>To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1.</p><p> Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1.</p><p>That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one).</p><p></p><p>Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7847271, member: 996"] Doesn't let it off the hook. Seriously, of anyone remotely familiar with the idea that wizards spend their training reading books and practicing spells, and fighter training with weapons, who's really going to think they should have equal skill with weapons?You'd expect a wizard to attack better with spells than a fighter would, with spells. And, at first level, he does, quite unequivocally. So no worries on that point. You don't need 4 tiers. A class feature for the fighter would be just fine. Yet there's plenty of modifiers and features and abilities and such based on class. It'd've been easier for a fan to accept that exploits and spells were different, then roll a new rev, but we went with rolling a new rev, because it had to be D&D for [I]EVERYONE[/I]. A fighter who's no better at hitting his target than the wizard feels different from one who is better. Quite possibly! If you're the kind of fan who started with 5e, for instance. 5e was shaped by the community that played D&D - and who very pointedly didn't pay D&D anymore - at the time of the Next playtest. It was touted as being 'for' all of them, and for everyone else who'd ever loved any past edition of D&D. So saying "it owes you nothing" to such a fan is repudiating the very foundation of 5e. No more ridiculous than asserting that it's flawless because it's "extremely popular." I mean, I'm going to wear the letters in [I]ad populum[/I] right off my keyboard at this rate! To be fair, we're talking 1st-level fighter, here. And it's a 1 on a d20 difference. That's not highly-differentiated. That's downright nominal. It wouldn't've killed BA if each combat style or a weapon specialization feature or somesuch gave the fighter a +1. Well, most classes in 5e are perfectly effective in combat, anyway. So there's nothing special about it. It's just a specific example of how there isn't even a razor-edge, nominal, or marginal advantage given the fighter in that most basic mechanic of the attack roll. In contrast, for instance, Expertise outruns the proficiency treadmill much more dramatically than a mere +1. That can be very hard to judge because of some of the differences among the systems. But there's some quite dramatic things fighters can't do in 5e that they could in past editions. Nothing remotely like Great Cleave or WWA, for instance (let alone C&GI). You'd have to get up the capstone number of extra attacks, and blow an Action Surge to even be comparable to one of those, at a reach 1. They were available as early as 3rd or 6th, depending on edition (and which one). Then there's the muting effect of BA. A 5e fighter can make a number of attacks without penalty that'd make a 3e fighter without WWA envious, but it can't stand up to a large number of opponents, even much lower level, the way it could in earlier editions. That's touted as a feature, but it does bring the fighter down a number of pegs in conceptual power. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why different HD types for classes? (Another HP thread...)
Top