THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Oskik on 01 Sep 2008, 07:30
-
First topic I've started. This one here's basically for D&D people or people who are interested in D&D or people who are bored and like seeing nerds argue about whether 2d6 is better than a d12 or a d12 is better than 2d6. Feel free to compare 4th edition to 3.5 or 3 or 2 or 1 I don't care as long as it's vaguely connected to D&D.
Have fun crazy interweb people!
-
It would probably help if you give your views on the subject you have started a topic about, just to get the ball rolling.
From what I hear of the new system, though, it's a bit more balanced than 3.5 character wise. Everybody has some sort of power to heal themselves, which eliminates both the problem of the cleric being a sentient, ambulatory potion, and the problem of parties with a larger amount of fighters and rogues and non-healers being shit out of luck when they run out of potions. However, I dislike the conglomeration of the alignments into five instead of nine. It kind of dumbs things down, roleplaying-wise. I haven't played it though, so I'm only touching on the more basic changes. Seems like a change for the better, though.
-
Since alignment is only a rough guide and not all that useful to role play anyway, do whatever you want with it. And since it was never a very good descriptor of true character, I've always tended to ignore it.
So D&D 4th? I love that it's more balanced. It's more balanced between classes and between levels. At epic levels, you'll be hopping the planes and fighting demons and maybe becoming a god; you'll change the fate of the world without ever having the power to truly warp it ([cough]wish[/cough]).
-
Whilst more a gothic-horror format than D'n'D's fantasy, as a system I would wholeheartedly recommend the White Wolf range of games to any roleplayers. It just feels less sluggish, more streamlined, and allows more storytelling than by-the-numbers monster bashing.
-
I've gotten to play a few times now as a Wizard, and my favorite thing about 4th edition D&D so far is that they have embraced powerful characters and have done a good job of balancing them besides. By this I mean that some of the best feat and power combinations tend to be obvious and thematically consistent rather than munchkiny, setting destroying abominations that depend on goofy shit like your DM cheerfully accepting all lawful good drow clerics in order to happen. For example, it's not exactly shocking that the combination of Action Surge, Wintertouched and Lingering Frost feats are very helpful to my Ice themed Human Wizard, and I can count on my fellow players to have similar obvious and powerful combinations for their characters unless they're working really hard at being dead weight.
-
So 4th has gotten rid of the linear fighter, quadratic wizard problem? The main complaint I have heard is the powers that everyone has that you can use once a round, once a minute, or a certain amount of times a day, those existed in 3.x, but they weren't what everyone used. Martial adepts in the Book of 9 swords were getting closer to that, able to use maneuvers an infinite amount of times a day, but needing to refocus to get them back, and only able to ready any given one once. I think Bo9S really helped the issue with fighters being stuck doing 2d6+15 damage constantly, while the mages played rocket launcher tag and who-can-bone-reality-harder. As it was, if you want to do melee damage worth a damn, you have to be a charger, when you get (1d8+20)3 damage if you know what you are doing at all, and x6 if you really try.
I would need to look at the books closer to decide whether I liked it or not, but the point is currently moot, as I am broke.
I honestly personally like d20 modern better, anyhow. Though you do need some houserules in order to get balance back in weapons, the guy that they had statting up guns was highly biased, he made it so that you are better off shooting skeet with a moose gun than birdshot.
-
I've been playing it, and it's a blast, to be honest. I find myself strategizing a lot more for fights (as well as the other party members), and my DM is good enough to make me think the storytelling part has improved (it hasn't really been affected at all, really, but the way combat has changed affects the pacing of the story, which is what has improved).
-
The big thing to get your mind around Nodaisho is that 4th doesn't even pretend to be playable without a grid and some minis now. Many, many character abilities deal directly with shifting pieces around the map. Also, Wizards can't really rape reality anymore so much as they're simply really good at utility and can really negatively affect the performance of large groups of enemies. Wizards are actually kind of subpar when it comes to dealing single target damage now, although I feel bad for any goblin horde that pisses off my ice wizard.
Fighters are pretty cool now; a lot of their abilities don't seem so hot at first glance, but a lot of their abilities dovetail together really nicely. Once they get into melee range they essentially become living choke points who punish enemies for doing anything but defending themselves from the fighter.
-
The thing that I like the least is the lack of druids and barbarians. also, while 3.5 had hundreds of different spells, 4th leaves spellcasters a bit less variable.
-
Personally, I always felt that seperating barbarians from the generic fighter umbrella in the first place was really dumb and a big part of why Fighters were so subpar in 3.x to begin with. I have nothing against the idea of a barbaric warrior, I just didn't understand why the hell they couldn't have made barbarian abilities into combat feats. That way you wouldn't have had to multi-class so damn much to turn into a halfway decent melee character (and even then you'd STILL get rolled by a determined spellcaster).
As it stands now, the 4th edition Fighter hits me as more than capable of covering the barbarian archetype, but I'm sure people will disagree with me, even if a standard fighter can easily start out favoring a 2 handed axe, chainmail and hide armor proficiencies (but no plate) and powers called Cleave, Reaping Blows, Brute Strike, Spinning Sweep and Boundless Endurance.
-
Basically, I'm not all that worried about the new system. What I AM worried about, is the 4th Edition version of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.
***SPOILARS***
The designers decided that two gods (Cyric and Shar) are going to murder the Goddess of Magic (Mystra, aka Midnight) and plunge the realms into chaos. This basically causes a phenomenon known as the "Spellplague" where Magic ceases to work the way it did before (Sound familiar?) and most wizards either die or go insane. Helm dies in a duel with Tyr over some retarded ass reason, Elminster goes insane, Toril gets "merged" with another world, and we have NO fucking clue what happens to Larloch. Also the Red motherfucking Wizards of Thay get destroyed, along with Luskan.
Basically the whole idea was to shit on the core fanbase and try and make the setting more "friendly" to attract new players. They assume that all new players are intimidated by The Chosen of Mystra (hence the destruction of her and her portfolio). They also assume that the magic system is too complicated (now instead of drawing magic from the weave and shadow weave, magic comes from "everywhere"). Also they assume that there are too many Gods, hence the killing off of any deity who is remotely similar to another (Deneir, Helm, etc..)
/nerd rage
-
I wouldn't say new players I'ved talked to over the years have ever been really intimidated by The Chosen of Mystra so much as they found them to be really fuckin' stupid. They're the D&D equivalent of Immortal Elves in Shadowrun-- they're not particularly necessary, and whenever they're trotted out it feels like one of the authors just whipped it out and proceeded to make the pages of your Dungeon Master's Manual all sticky.
-
I think that taking out classes isn't really much of an issue, to be honest. My DM is going to create his own druid and monk, and he seems pretty confident it will be easy. All he's really got to worry about are picking powers and doing the paragon/heroic paths bit. For the druid, he can borrow heavily from the ranger if he wants to, and a little bit from the wizards, and it's mostly done. And truthfully, I agree completely with the Barbarian sentiment. In fact, instead of releasing new classes, they could probably just update path/power choices.
-
Be My Head, take a few deep breaths and calm the nerdrage. WotC employees love the game, they love the Realms. They're not going to rape them. They've altered them so that you can continue to use a beloved world in a new ruleset. Do you think they're going to simultaneously acknowledge a devoted fanbase and then make it so that the world they love is completely ruined and unusable? Seriously? No.
The Wizards of Thay are still around, they're still powerful, and they're ruled by Szass. He was one of the first to master the new system of magic, which is why he's still in charge and they're still powerful.
Elminster is not insane. Instead, in keeping with the established history of the character he's absorbed the memories of several powerful beings (The sisters? Mystra herself? Some of the lesser deities?) who tend to try and take over his mind when he uses magic. What this means is that Elminster is still influential and powerful, but he's not a game/book-breaker. The DM/author no longer have to come up with some absurd reason why Elminster, being pretty much a god, doesn't just solve the problem himself. He's there, he advises, he gives you the hook, then he disappears. He could also become a hook himself later.
There was nothing in the change that was antagonistic toward Mystra or the chosen except that they were broken, the game needed balance, and it was the best way to explain the changes and allow the realms to come into 4th edition.
As for classes not existing; they wanted to keep the books from getting huge and becoming money-sucking tomes. They limited themselves, with difficulty, to 8 races and 8 classes. This, plus some other necessary info, kept the book to a manageable 300+ pages. We'll get more classes later. The classes they left out were loved by some, but either didn't have broad appeal (bard, barbarian, monk) or had serious workability issues (druid, monk). They needed more time, they got more time.
In the meantime, you can focus a wizard on elemental type spells and make yourself a controller druid, or multiclass a ranger and cleric to make yourself a melee druid. He won't have summons (serious balance issues) and won't shapechange, but that's good. They need to leave something to make the druid unique. What I can recall is that the druid will be in PH2, though I don't know what role he'll have (I think elemental control will be given to a shaman character, and elemental defender to the barbarian). The bard will definitely be in the PH2 and will be an arcane striker.
-
My Nerd rage has been dulled significantly by surgoshan's post. I think that if I split my playing between old and new I will be very much satisfied. 4th edition is new and innovative and shiny, but it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, what with it being much more of a minis game. On the other hand, I was borne into 3.5 and love it forever, and it's pretty awesome if you can get your head around some of the complications. Once you do, though, it's very in-depth and very much fun if you've got a good DM; there's alot of different options. However, I'm sure that 4th will catch up content wise sometime.
-
Well, 3.5 has had, what, 8 years? 4E can't catch up with that overnight, not with just three books. Let them come out with PH2 and MM2 and we'll be halfway there, I think.
-
Man, who needs content? This game was built around imagination.
-
Man, who needs content? This game was built around imagination.
The raging nerds? For them D&D isn't just the game, it's also the story that's been built around it. Like the people who get upset about Kerrigan, or Aeris. It's just a game, but someone had to go and put in a story.
-
Those dastardly motherfuckers.
-
Makes you wanna bash some zerglings, don't it?
STOP POKING ME!
-
Man, who needs content? This game was built around imagination.
The raging nerds? For them D&D isn't just the game, it's also the story that's been built around it. Like the people who get upset about Kerrigan, or Aeris. It's just a game, but someone had to go and put in a story.
I guess I can understand that. For the longest time, though, we've been making our own as we go along. My DM doesn't keep notes on the story or anything, mostly because he doesn't feel the need to. Also because some of us might stumble across them during a party and ruin it for ourselves.
I always felt like borrowing from those established universes was cheating a little bit, I guess.
-
It varies based on the campaign/party of course. Some like fitting their game into an established 'verse so they can feel like they're making a difference in a world they already know. Some like a detailed world built entirely for/by them where they get to make a difference. Some don't care one way or another and just like seeing their characters get more and more badass. 4E is meant to support all of that, and make it fun all the while.
This advertisement brought to you by the letter bud and the number light.
-
You know us Warhammer Fantasy nerds didn't get this worked up over the switch from 6th to 7th ed.
-
yes but war hammer has an average of a new edition every 3 years we have one about every 8 years and it's an overhaul rather than an update
-
Warhammer 5th ed was out in 1994 (and was really just the addtion of the magic system to 4th ed which had come out in 1990 or thereabouts), 6th ed in 2000, and 7th ed came out in 2007.
The core rules have been the same since the late 80s for combat & psychology, while the rules for magic use and army selection underwent a major revision since 2000. Generally it's been a tweeking rather than major rule revisions, as the game moved away from a RPG system where you could scale up to massed combat to a table top wargame. Sort of how D&D went from being a tabletop wargame (Chainmail) to an RPG.
-
Perhaps part of it is that Warhammer's always been a minis game and that the overhauls are just balance issues?
I get the feeling that a big part of the rebellion is due to 4e embracing minis in a fashion that was only implied in 3.X. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
-
That really is the heart of it. AD&D wasn't a miniatures game. It had the chainmail legacy in there so you could play it as one, but it wasn't expressly a minis game, so most people didn't handle it that way-- most people don't want to adlib or work out their own system for handling the scale of a battle field, LoS rules and the area a cone of cold covers. Same thing with 3rd edition, which in many ways was a response to White Wolf and larger gaming trends. Open ended skills, modular characters (albeit through multi-classing rather than skill based systems), higher quality book production and lots and lots of fluff are all pages from the White Wolf Storyteller handbook. Which, honestly, was kind of silly at times because at the end of the day D&D is still usually about bashing green people over the head so you can rifle through their gunnysacks looking for loot. Fourth edition is a miniatures game that puts that fact front and center. Wizards don't really bend reality or cast Wish spells any more-- their job is now zapping people, and the game hands out complimentary 3x3 blast templates at character creation to drive home the point.
-
what do you guys recommend for someone who has never played D&D nor read D&D material? I am interested in getting into it.
-
If you're interested in playing, ask around game/comic book shops about D&D meetings and see if anyone you know plays. If the people you run into aren't crazy elitist and hardcoar about it, they probably won't mind slowing down to accommodate a new player. Get a set of seven die from said game shops or the internet, and a figurine. It also doesn't hurt to get your hands on a Player's Handbook, which, like most D&D accessories are sold at game shops.
-
You mean there are people who yell "nub" and laugh at you in real life? :boggle:
Okay, I'm not boggled nor even in the least surprised, but I have been fortunate in that I've only played with people who were more than happy to accommodate neophytes and welcome them into a new hobby. In other words, with people who weren't flaming dickwads.
-
After having had the last couple months to play it, it feels like 4th ed is just D&D getting out of the identity crisis that 3rd Ed was perpetuating.
I'm a huge fan of the fact that you can now powergame and not break anything. Even weakening yourself down for flavor reasons isn't going to have a huge affect on your capabilities as long as you know how to use what you got.
I've been confused by the massive outcry against 4th ed since the beginning though. Half the time i can't tell if the complaints are misunderstandings about how the game has been changed, expecting the 3 core books to have all the material that 3rd ed had over the course of the last 8 years, or if it's just a bunch of people who are just that fucking bitchy.
-
I've been confused by the massive outcry against 4th ed since the beginning though. Half the time i can't tell if the complaints are misunderstandings about how the game has been changed, expecting the 3 core books to have all the material that 3rd ed had over the course of the last 8 years, or if it's just a bunch of people who are just that fucking bitchy.
I don't know. Complaining about edition changes seems to be one of the favorite things to do in RPG circles these days. What gets frustrating, I think, is that you've put a lot of time and money in to buying books and learning rules, but then too many rules change and you feel like you have to start from scratch.
I haven't played D&D in a long time, but so far I like what I've heard about 4th ed. It sounds like it might be fun.
-
Well yes, obviously the monetary investment is important, but it's not exactly like the 40+ books that were out will dissapear from their collection. Not to mention that every edition of D&D, with the exception of 3.5 was a drastic overhaul of the system. It just boggles my mind.
I would definitely suggest trying it out though if you get a chance. It's more of a step back to the older editions of D&D with a bigger emphasis on using a battlemap and minis of some sort and a hell of a lot less game breaking character tweaks.
-
I've been listening to the PA/PvP 4ed podcast on the wizard's website, it doesn't sound bad, but the new books aren't all that high on my list of what to buy, even once I get money. One of the people I play with, who has been playing since at least 2E, doesn't like the round/encounter/daily way that abilities work, he seems to have liked the Vancian magic system.
-
Difference in taste I can understand. I personally couldn't bare to go back to my 1st and 2nd ed days. Just... bleh.
-
So far it seems like the numbers have all been inflated in 4E. 21 or more HP at first level, an ability (albeit daily) that does 6d6 + something at first level, it just seems like the numbers are bigger for no real reason.
-
The most damaging power at 1st level does 3d10 damage if I recall correctly and like you said it's a daily. You also start with more health because no one liked being a wizard and having 4 health. You can take more damage now and survive a blow no matter your class, but enemies average damage output is a lot higher and the enemies health is also a LOT higher. The combat in 4th ed is very lethal.
Also, you have to keep in mind that items that raise stats no longer exist and magic items have been de-buffed a lot in general. The emphasis is on having a really cool character that isn't just a useless piece of crap without his magic items. They are still powerful and can have some big affects on your characters strengths, but they aren't the end all be all anymore.
-
I'm not sure what it was called, it was a fighter power, It does 6d6, and if you miss, it doesn't count as expended.
-
I'm telling you, I've beenplaying since 4th came out and I just looked through the Fighter powers to make sure i wasn't wrong and that power doesn't exist. First off, the fighter doesn't get any attacks that deal set dice damage. 99% of them are based on his weapon damage plus whatever stat the power is based on. The fighter also doesn't do that large a dice pool damage because they're purpose is to basically be a choke point and meat shield for the rest of the party. They focus on keeping things from getting by them and dealing damage while they're at it. If need be they can do some pretty decent damage, though nowhere near what a Ranger, Rogue or Warlock can pull off when they are doing their job properly.
Hell, a fighter's most damaging Daily power is a lvl 30 that does 7dx (x = whatever die the weapon used allows). A lot of the powers are powerful not based on what damage they deal, though it's a nice bonus, but due to what other affects they have. Like "Steel Serpent Strike", a fighter encounter power that when it hits, 2dx damage and makes it where the enemy can't shift until the next turn of the fighter.
-
Brute strike, I think it is called. I just heard him mention it again. I know he did 6d6, he started off just doing 2d6, when they pointed out that he was supposed to be doing 6d6. I don't know, maybe it was a crit and they just didn't mention it?
-
I'm just rewriting the entire entry cause it got strange with edits.
I do apologize, you are correct that he could be doing that much damage. Ok, Brute Strike does 3[W]*. I had forgotten about a specific instance in which he could do 6d6 with it and that is if he went Minotaur and was using a Large category Great Axe. Still, a daily power that can be used on only 1 target and is most certainly expended if he misses with it. The only powers that do anything if you miss specify a miss effect. That would include the Daily Power Villain's Menace, which in my opinion is loads better but is more suited for "boss" battles.
Even with that, the power is far from broken and in practice is more of an example of how cheesing doesn't break the game anymore.
Also, crits don't do multiples of damage anymore, they do automatic Max damage.
*: This is an easier way of mentioning damage. 1[w] for a weapon that does 1d10 would be 1d10 damage. 2[w] for a weapon that does 1d10 damage would be 2d10 etc etc
Even with that, the power is far from broken and is more of an example of how cheesing doesn't break the game anymore.
-
Ah, right, I forgot crits just act like maximize. All my experience comes from listening to the podcasts. It could be that the books they were using weren't the ones that went gold, but that is unlikely considering how soon before release the podcasts were made.
-
Yeah, I do apologize, I edited the post because I realized what I was missing from the equation. But you have to consider that enemies at 1st level tend to have 20 - 40 HP if they aren't minions. It's hardly a game breaker.
-
I have a question, would 2[w] with a weapon that does 2d6 be 4d6 or 2d6? Or did they get rid of 2d6 weapons?
-
It would be 4d6.
The only ones that do that much anymore (at least until a book including them comes out) are Large Sized Greataxes. There may be one or two more in the monster manual, but the Minotaur is the only race that i can think of right off the top of my head that can wield Large Sized weapons for the time being. At least of the races that have been balanced for player use so far.
-
Still, a daily power that can be used on only 1 target and is most certainly expended if he misses with it. The only powers that do anything if you miss specify a miss effect.
You're forgetting about keyward modifiers. Brute Strike's an ability with the Martial, Weapon and Reliable keywards. So you can in fact try using the ability again with your next available standard action in the event you miss. It's actually a frightfully common keyword in the fighter list as well, (I'm quite certain they have more Reliable abilities than anyone else in the game), so make sure you guys aren't shorting your local meatshield by denying him one of his better advantages. Dodging a fighter's better tricks quite often just ends up delaying the inevitable.
-
The character in question is a dwarf with a maul. The maul is a new weapon in 4E, isn't it? It isn't just that nobody used it in 3.5, I know I didn't see it on the weapon table.
-
AH HA!
I had completely forgotten that and that would explain that then. My table's meat shield just may be switching powers then. Though to be fair, I'm not sure if he'd be willing to give up Villain's Menace, damn thing is incredible.
No, unless the maul has been added in via Dungeons and Dragons Magazine it's not in 4th ed yet, it was a 3rd ed weapon in a splat book that did 1d12.
-
Yeah, Villain's Menace is pretty sweet. But if you're a big ass Dragonborn with a 2 hander or something, you won't hear complaining one way or the other. A lot of things are tough calls with fighters and it likely depends a fair bit on the group in question as well. I thought going in that the ol' sword (or any one hander, really) 'n' board approach was probably the way to go since crits don't multiply things anymore and because the party will probably depend on your durability as much as your sword arm when heading into battle. What I wasn't counting on was Combat Superiority and attacks of opportunity; with a decent Wisdom and Strength score the little bit of extra damage you deal here and there by using a 2 hander in lieu of a shield starts piling up quickly, particularly with Power Attack. I'd still probably take a shield, were I playing a fighter, but it's just more evidence that the game is balanced tightly enough at this point not for it to be a big deal either way.
-
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous how many build options you have with the core classes with none of them being broken or shit.
-
Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous how many build options you have with the core classes with none of them being broken or shit.
They were really, really careful, I think. I believe they spent the last two years balancing 4e. Depending on what you're going for, a sword'n'boarder is just as valid a build as a two-hander. This is partly because many people misunderstand the fighter's purpose; he's no longer a meat-grinder. The fighter is now meant to be a lock-down. He forces foes to stop and deal with him, literally; he can end movement, and a lot of his powers hamper movement. He doesn't deal damage (that's for warlocks, rogues, and rangers), but he can soak up punishment and turn a portion of the battlefield into a glue-pit.
-
Yeah, my ranger is pretty much a berserker with a scimitar and a flail.
-
That was already a major way for people to play fighters, though people that could make themselves larger by magic could do it at lower levels. It is nice that they made that a bit more obvious, though, and possible to do with any weapon.
-
Not that a fighter's damage should be underestimated, of course. My four man group is playing at level 12, and the human fighter in our group's favorite little trick right now is to use his "Come and Get It!" encounter power, spend an action point and then follow that up with his "Thicket of Blades" daily power. Since he uses a flail, the end result is that he makes everything in a Burst 3 zone around him come 2 steps closer to him and anything that ends adjacent to him is subject to a 2d6+7 attack followed by a Reliable 6d6+7 attack that slows anyone it hits. That's pretty respectable, especially when you consider he's not exactly really sacrificing much if any crowd control to pull it off. Things either have to deal with him after that or get reamed by his attacks of opportunity trying to get away.
[EDIT] No wait, actually, he's got a 5 strength bonus but his flail is a +2 magic weapon. so i guess it'd be a 3(2d6+2) damage code with the 5 strengthbonus tacked on at the end. Remembering this shit is why I'm the wizard. Screw weapons. All I know is the damage he didn with those two moves wasn't far off from what my wizard can do. Although, of course, I do it from a safer distance and more often.
-
Thicket of blades do the same thing as 3.5? In 3.5, it was a stance (book of 9 swords) that let you make an AoO off of 5-foot steps (now called shifting). Pretty mean, especially when you use a large-sized reach weapon (with powerful build) and something to make you go up one size (two if you are a high enough level psychic warrior). You get knockdown, which allows you to make an automatic trip attempt every time you do 10 or more damage, a +8 to trip from size (+12 if you go up two sizes from expansion), +4 from improved trip, and a big strength bonus, along with any magical items you might have. Oh, and you could make a strong case that with improved trip, after you make a successful trip attempt from knockdown, you get a free attack on the now-prone opponent. So you make your AoO, do at least 10 damage, trip them, and hit them again. And you can do this to anyone within 15 or 20 feet, not sure on that part. (short haft allows you to use a reach weapon inside its normal range, or you can use a gauntlet, which I don't think counts as TWF as long as you aren't attacking with both of them in the same action)
Course, if you are fighting a gargantuan centipede, you are SOL.
-
Yeah... there isn't anything like that in 4e. No more chain-wielding trip-monkeys who put together weapons and feats in order to do one thing over and over and over so that the DM has no choice but to either let them break combat or throw an enemy against them that can't be, say, tripped or knocked down (gargantuan centipede) which completely nullifies them by being immune to the one, and only one, thing they do.
-
Yep, you don't need to do anything special feat wise to lay the hurt on people or worry about being rendered a one trick pony so much anymore. These days thicket of blades is a 3[W] plus strength bonus damage attack to adjacent creatures that slows anything it hits until they make a saving throw, which is good but hardly mindblowing. Fighters are better at attacks of opportunity than the other classes in 4e, but it's largely a standard feature of the class that can't really be cheesed all that much.
-
Thicket of blades do the same thing as 3.5? In 3.5, it was a stance (book of 9 swords) that let you make an AoO off of 5-foot steps (now called shifting). Pretty mean, especially when you use a large-sized reach weapon (with powerful build) and something to make you go up one size (two if you are a high enough level psychic warrior). You get knockdown, which allows you to make an automatic trip attempt every time you do 10 or more damage, a +8 to trip from size (I have nothing of value to add.2 if you go up two sizes from expansion), +4 from improved trip, and a big strength bonus, along with any magical items you might have. Oh, and you could make a strong case that with improved trip, after you make a successful trip attempt from knockdown, you get a free attack on the now-prone opponent. So you make your AoO, do at least 10 damage, trip them, and hit them again. And you can do this to anyone within 15 or 20 feet, not sure on that part. (short haft allows you to use a reach weapon inside its normal range, or you can use a gauntlet, which I don't think counts as TWF as long as you aren't attacking with both of them in the same action)
Course, if you are fighting a gargantuan centipede, you are SOL.
See this?
This is why I'm never touching 3rd Ed again.
-
You do realize that that is just a basic attempt at making a fighter more than a waste of space, right? An archer type can sit back a few hundred feet away and pelt him with ten or twelve arrows in a round, a wizard can blind him, since he has shitty will saves, which means he has no idea when or where to swing, and even if he does, he gets a 50% miss chance, and a cleric... well, I guess clerics are really either not all that good, or godlike (DMM:Persist lets you put a lot of buffs on for 24 hours). Though they do have storm of vengeance.
-
What you just said? Supporting my choice to never touch 3rd Ed again.
-
What, characters too complicated for you? I guess I can understand the appeal of 4E, but I really also like having so many sources to make a character from. For instance, D20 modern has very few source books, characters are pretty easy to make, the biggest part is figuring out what to buy, how mastercrafted to make it, any enchantments (if playing with FX), but in D&D, you have a lot more stuff to consider, so when you find a build that you like, you have the feeling that you made something nobody else did, even if someone else has likely made a build with all the same classes, because you put so much thought into it, doing it all yourself.
-
No, I played and enjoyed number crunching for quite a while in 3rd ed, but it was also shitty as hell that certain classes actually WERE completely useless unless you broke the game and multiclassed your way to godhood. It was especially a problem if someone in the group wasn't as good at making characters or was more about flavor than powergaming or numbercrunching and basically got screwedf or not knowing how to abuse the system.
The game was broken beyond belief.
Hence why outside of flavor books, 3rd Ed will never be touched by me again.
Edit: There's also something to be said about the fact that WotC put in practically useless feats such as toughness in the books with the intent of them being terrible feats. Personally I found it irritating that I was apparently paying them to make purposefully shitty feats, powers and classes to penalize people who were not as familiar with the game and make people who did know the game wonder why the hell they wasted the space with them.
-
What, didn't all of you agree what amount of optimization to use? Granted, there are some shitty classes, but that should be taken for granted, nobody can balance perfectly. Fighter did need help, though. There were a few ways you could use fighter 20 to be awesome (archer works, lots and lots of feats, lots and lots of iteratives), but for the most part, it was underpowered. Most classes had to multiclass for highest potential, druid is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. And artificer.
Basically, it could be broken (pun-pun, anyone?) but it was only as broken as the DM and the players let it be.
-
Yes, but the optimization discussion is something I could gleefully do without though. I really just don't see a bonus in having characters of the same level with such widely varying capabilities. Some guys just want to play the game and approach things as collaborative problem solving with some wisecracks and snack foods thrown in. Some guys just want to play a role and approach things as performance. As a former GM I always found it easier to appease both groups when I kept their relative capabilities in line. Plus, I generally dislike metagaming against my players, and some of the more min-maxed builds basically beg for the silver bullets to be pulled out lest I lose the attention of the rest of the party.
-
First time I DMed in college I made the mistake of letting a munchkin do his thing. He made a totally broken fighter build whereas everyone else just wanted to play for fun. Since they never got to do anything... it wasn't fun.
-
I played tonight, I had a good time. Like I said, I'm a ranger with a scimitar and a flail. I used Thundertusk Boar Strike and knocked a gravehound 4 squares back, across a trench. That same hound managed to take me to -1. The fighter marked the other hound and managed to stop it from finishing me by interrupting, then stood over me to fend off both. I managed to heal by next round, and we won the fight.
I just want to say that 3/3.5 never made me feel like teamwork was as important as it felt in this instance. I really do think they've improved group dynamics.
-
Is marking similar to aid another in 3.x?
-
Nope. When a fighter marks a foe, that foe gains a penalty to attack anyone other than that fighter. An individual can only have one mark at a time.
A more thorough explanation (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080227a).