Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 3861109" data-attributes="member: 5100">For me, it's a flavor thing.&nbsp; I'm under no illusions that any real person could do what a 20th level fighter could.&nbsp; But, when I play a sword-slinger, I want it to feel like a sword-slinger, not a spell-slinger.&nbsp; A fighter 20 should be a fighter++, not a fighter/wizard.&nbsp; The moves may be exaggerated, but they should still be recognizable as extensions of what he was doing at 1st level.That means that the +6d6 damage that penetrates DR is fine, but +2d6 damage from summoned flame on the sword isn't.&nbsp; It's not a balance issue.&nbsp; The mega-strike damage is just a much more in-flavor with a fighter than is the flame-strike damage.&nbsp; Making a strong guy, inhumanly strong works, too.&nbsp; Making an improbably jump is one thing, but the fairy-prancing in Crouching Tiger-like movies isn't the image I want coupled with my dwarves.I guess, if I could pick a mental image for high-level martial characters, it would be &quot;300&quot;.&nbsp; I may be missing something, but I don't recall any flaming weapons or fairy-prancing.&nbsp; There were a lot of extremely unlikely defenses, attacks, and feats of endurance, though.&nbsp; That's the feel I want from my epic fighters.I'm okay with a ninja-like class (i.e. swordsage) or a crusader who channels faith into martial prowess.&nbsp; I just also want the option of having my Leonidas as formidable.As an aside, I really hope the ranger ends up a martial class.&nbsp; Removing the ranger spells and replacing them with some appropriately extraordinary and/or supernatural (to use the 3E classification) maneuvers that replicate them would be much better, flavor-wise.&nbsp; I'm thinking Shadow Hand with nature instead of shadows.&nbsp; That might even get me to buy into a ranger with d8 hit dice and/or medium BAB (I'd still prefer d10 HD, though).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 3861109, member: 5100"] For me, it's a flavor thing. I'm under no illusions that any real person could do what a 20th level fighter could. But, when I play a sword-slinger, I want it to feel like a sword-slinger, not a spell-slinger. A fighter 20 should be a fighter++, not a fighter/wizard. The moves may be exaggerated, but they should still be recognizable as extensions of what he was doing at 1st level. That means that the +6d6 damage that penetrates DR is fine, but +2d6 damage from summoned flame on the sword isn't. It's not a balance issue. The mega-strike damage is just a much more in-flavor with a fighter than is the flame-strike damage. Making a strong guy, inhumanly strong works, too. Making an improbably jump is one thing, but the fairy-prancing in Crouching Tiger-like movies isn't the image I want coupled with my dwarves. I guess, if I could pick a mental image for high-level martial characters, it would be "300". I may be missing something, but I don't recall any flaming weapons or fairy-prancing. There were a lot of extremely unlikely defenses, attacks, and feats of endurance, though. That's the feel I want from my epic fighters. I'm okay with a ninja-like class (i.e. swordsage) or a crusader who channels faith into martial prowess. I just also want the option of having my Leonidas as formidable. As an aside, I really hope the ranger ends up a martial class. Removing the ranger spells and replacing them with some appropriately extraordinary and/or supernatural (to use the 3E classification) maneuvers that replicate them would be much better, flavor-wise. I'm thinking [i]Shadow Hand[/i] with nature instead of shadows. That might even get me to buy into a ranger with d8 hit dice and/or medium BAB (I'd still prefer d10 HD, though). [/QUOTE]

Verification