|
I had asked Wulf Ratbane of Badaxe Games (Grim Tales) to post another preview of his upcoming Trailblazer supplement for d20 fantasy. Here's the Trailblazer fighter.
Here's my response:
"The road to further previews is paved with quality feedback."
I know, I know. When I get home. :blush: But right off the bat:
I like combat reactions. Gives fighters more things to do in combat without having to rely on feat chains which usually lead him/her to be only good at one thing. Also, it would be easy to insert new types of reactions like parrying from d20 Conan. Oh, and now I'm curious what you did with iterative attacks after you made the statement, the levels at which they previously gained new iterative attacks.
Expert Weapon Proficiency. I can seem powergamers trying to get munchkiny with this. That's fine. Can melee combat folks like monks apply EWP to their unarmed attacks (ala fists, kicks)?
Character-based saving throws. I like this for the reasons you just named. I'm a fan of the Generic Classes from Unearthed Arcana which uses something similar. I'd love to create a tough-as-nails warmage who can stand the toughest poisons and the like.
While I do like the skill points I do not like gaining them sneak attack
While I do like the skill points I do not like gaining them sneak attack
Well, the Sneak Attack equivelent is only for attacks of opprotunities and it doesn't scale as fast, so it really isn't much of a damage-booster.
still I don't like it. It's sneak attack with a fluff change
still I don't like it. It's sneak attack with a fluff changehuh. didn't even think of punishing attack that way. reminds me of 4th edition's fighter's mark without all the mental gymnastics involved.
Well, technically it's more equivalent to Combat Superiority, since both abilities basically mean the Fighter is very very good at Opportunity Attacks/Attacks of Opportunity.
*Rabid fan of 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e*
|
I loved the GM Day preview back whenever, but to be honest I wish Wulf had a real website/blog instead of piggybacking on ENWorld - it seems cheap and I just don't like ENWorld (look-n-feel).
(why don't they self-pimp by running more off their site? I remember them from back with Slavelords of Cydonia - they've got the right stuff.)
I loved the GM Day preview back whenever, but to be honest I wish Wulf had a real website/blog instead of piggybacking on ENWorld - it seems cheap and I just don't like ENWorld (look-n-feel).
Hey! I resent that. I'm not cheap. I'm lazy.
But really, ENworld is where I find the traffic that I want and, more importantly, the conversation. ENworld is my home. It's where I started. Even if I bothered to run forums from my site, I'd still spend more time at ENworld.
I remember them from back with Slavelords of Cydonia - they've got the right stuff.)
Thank you.
|
|
Hey! I resent that. I'm not cheap. I'm lazy.
I can respect that!
But really, ENworld is where I find the traffic that I want and, more importantly, the conversation. ENworld is my home. It's where I started. Even if I bothered to run forums from my site, I'd still spend more time at ENworld.
Ok, I trudged through your article on iterative attacks...very impressive. I'm a mathematician (at heart, nobody pays me for it) so I'm drawn to your analysis and approach. As I've said, I'll be buying a copy. I may even start using the iterative bit in my current campaign.
Keep up the great work, and remember to post an occasional message over here for your fans that lurk away from ENWorld.
The idea of using "combat reactions" to block or dodge is kind of neat, although DR 5+ for using a tower shield seems a little steep to me (for instance). I'd have to see it in action.
I definitely like the combat reactions idea...*YOINK!*
I'd still recommend playtesting that DR option, though.
I definitely like the combat reactions idea...*YOINK!*I'd still recommend playtesting that DR option, though.
We wouldn't want to encourage anyone to use shields, now would we? ;)
BAB 1-5, one reaction. That's one attack blocked, for DR4-6. That's a nice chunk compared to most non-magical weapons at this level.
BAB 6-10, two reactions. Up to two attacks blocked, for DR7-9 each; DR9-11 if his shield is +2.
BAB 11-15, three reactions. Up to three attacks blocked, for DR9-11; DR13-15 if the shield is +4.
BAB 16-20, four reactions. Up to four attacks blocked, for DR12-14 each; DR17-19 if the shield is +5.
I still think that the dodge reaction is the better choice; I can't imagine using all my reactions to block and not leaving at least one reaction to dodge.
Still... Meaningful choices for the melee classes.
I definitely like the combat reactions idea...*YOINK!*I'd still recommend playtesting that DR option, though.We wouldn't want to encourage anyone to use shields, now would we? ;)
BAB 1-5, one reaction. That's one attack blocked, for DR4-6. That's a nice chunk compared to most non-magical weapons at this level.
BAB 6-10, two reactions. Up to two attacks blocked, for DR7-9 each; DR9-11 if his shield is +2.
BAB 11-15, three reactions. Up to three attacks blocked, for DR9-11; DR13-15 if the shield is +4.
BAB 16-20, four reactions. Up to four attacks blocked, for DR12-14 each; DR17-19 if the shield is +5.
I still think that the dodge reaction is the better choice; I can't imagine using all my reactions to block and not leaving at least one reaction to dodge.
Still... Meaningful choices for the melee classes.
Don't get me wrong -- I like the idea of treats for shield-users!
By the way, does the Block combat reaction get declared before or after the attack hits? If it has to be declared before the attack hits, then it's not as good as I'm thinking. But if it's after, DR 10+ sounds pretty good to me!
|
I'm going to use the idea of the Combat reaction, the execution should be different, block is not in my solution, as the concept is sound, but the execution isn't what I envision. I like cinematics, like the ability to use your shield to block you while you step around your opponent, preventing an AoO for moving, binding your opponents weapon (ala Errol Flynn).
So it will just become an option in the combat system I'm developing.
Don't get me wrong -- I like the idea of treats for shield-users!
By the way, does the Block combat reaction get declared before or after the attack hits? If it has to be declared before the attack hits, then it's not as good as I'm thinking. But if it's after, DR 10+ sounds pretty good to me!
We declare both blocks and dodges before the attack roll is made-- or, at least, before the result is announced. Sometimes there's a little excited overlap between what the DM is doing on his "turn," and giving the players a chance to respond. (Try not to step on the players' toes during your own turn, because keeping them actively engaged when it is your turn is the point of combat reactions.)
If you're a big softie, you could certainly allow blocks to be made after the hit is announced. It's an easy change to make and wouldn't crash your game.
But the idea is that the player of the fighting man will watch his opponents, assess his threats, and announce something on the order of, "I will dodge the dragon's bite," or "I will block the ogre's club." (Before the attack roll.)
It's a benefit for being attentive and proactive.
Ah, then Block isn't as good as I thought. In that case, you're probably better off using the Dodge reaction most of the time (unless your foe has an ungodly attack bonus).
Ah, then Block isn't as good as I thought. In that case, you're probably better off using the Dodge reaction most of the time (unless your foe has an ungodly attack bonus).
Actually, if you prefer to play the DPS game, block will usually be the statistically superior choice, especially if you use a tower/magic shield.
Not that I advocate such an approach... however... =)
I put this together quickly with a standard, "Natural Roll Needed vs. DPS" spreadsheet.
1) Determine how much you can dodge. If you can dodge for a +1 bonus on a d20 roll, that's 5%. If you can dodge for a +10 bonus on a d20 roll, that's 50%.
2) Now figure out how much you can block. If you can dodge for +1, then you can block for +1; or, DR5 with a tower shield.
If 5 > (5%) of the attacker's average damage then you're better off blocking. That's true regardless of what natural number on the die the opponent needs. The opponent would need to do in excess of 100 damage to make dodging the statistically superior play. In every other case, the attacker's DPS is lower if you block.
Let's look at this another way. Say the opponent hits you on a 2+, or 95% of the time. If his average damage is 10 points, his DPS is 9.5. If you dodge (+1), then his DPS goes down to 90%, or 9 points. If you block instead, his DPS stays at 95%, but you'll take 5 points off it, dropping from 9.5 damage to 4.5 damage.
3) Let's look at a very high level fighter, BAB+20. You can dodge/block for +10; that's 50% dodging, and DR14 with a tower shield. If 14 > (50%) of the opponent's average damage then you are better off blocking. If the creature does 28 points of damage or less, you should block.
Let's say the opponent does 40 damage. If he hits you on a 2+ (95%), his DPS is 38. If you dodge (+10), now he needs a 12+ to hit you, that DPS drops from 95% to 45%, or 18 points.
Meanwhile if you'd just blocked (DR14) the original 2+ attack, the DPS drops from 38 to 24 points. In this case, dodge is better.
The "break point" is 28 points. (50% x 28 = DR14).
Feel free to correct my math.
I'm personally more of a gambler: This analysis is fine over the long haul, but combats often don't last long enough to make gambling on "long term" trends "feel" like the better play. You dodge one big attack and take no damage = you feel like a winnah.
But then I'm also a proponent of "All Power Attack, All the Time." ;)