| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
    
 | | 04/26/2005 10:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
So how does tullywi's compromise sound?
"A commander may choose whether his Commander rating counts positively or negatively towards a friendly creature's morale check."
I like it :)
I pretty much guarantee I'll never use it, but I like it :)
| |
| |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 04/26/2005 10:20 PM |
| I guess I should make an apology here too because even though my whining to Galnew a month or more ago was one reason he started this thread, I haven't had the time to read it yet.. that's why all my Jacks are all in a row here :)
On the topic of potions, I'm iffy on the "use half then trade up" idea.. just simply because it seems weird to me :) In D&D RPG potions are just a class above rations.. they are pricy consumables.. to quote a classic RPG video game's instruction manual (could be Final Fantasy but I'm not sure) "if you could buy potions by the barrel, you would!". I would be more satisfied with winning potions in batches.. the number I have in mind is 3. If you don't want those three potions, then you could trade them in next time.. but if you want to use them.. then use them.. at your leisure.. but you wont get them back.
The down side, which to me isn't too bad, is that if you make a habit of using potions, you will eventually have less magic items than someone of your level probably would (barring rampant item stealing).
The up side is a more RP feeling item. I see it this way.. a decent potion in D&D will run you about 750GP (something like fly or invis, if I'm remembering right) a magic weapon is.. hmm.. i forget.. either 2000 or 3000 plus the cost of the normal weapon, plus the cost of making it masterwork. The point being, 3 potions of a decent spell could be a temporarily powerful item to have on hand, but if you rub that lamp too often, eventually you're gonna run out of wishes :).
That's 2 more cents.. what am I at now? 6 cents already? Expensive night :).
Tkort
| |
| |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 04/26/2005 10:29 PM |
| Last one :)
Topic: Summoned creatures as LTs.
I think that if a creature shows up and performs well for you and manages to survive to revel in victory with the rest of your troops, there is no reason you shouldn't offer that creature a ranking position in your army, if you so desire. But I think that this should eliminate that creature's potential to be summoned from that point on.. therefore only allowing it in your warband as a normal creature..
This could be tricky if it was a creature not of your faction.. I am almost afraid to ask this, but could you change it's faction for our little campaign? :) This might make for some interesting crossovers.. it might never come into play.. I haven't looked into the details.
Anyways, IMHO, you shouldn't be able to summon in your LTs at will, but if a summoned creature is all you got kickin' around, it beats having to burn the 500xp on nothin' :(.
Here's something else to think about though: Why not just give the XP to the guy who summoned it.. thereby making yourself a tougher summoner instead of a tougher summoned creature? That makes more sense to me, since the summoner will always still be there if the summoned creature is :).
Tkort
(done now :))
| |
| |
|
lurch_E_bean
Underboss
1058 Posts
| | 04/27/2005 1:02 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by lurch_E_bean
Also, I have a question about an item I just got. I got a +1 shield of fireballs, and my question is after I use the two fireballs, do I have nothing left or a +1 shield? If I have a +1 shield, could that now be considered a minor item that I could trade in?
Lost in the riff-raff, still needs answering.
Also, Urthok the Destroyer just got a +1 Armor of Charging and Shielding. Now how does Powerful Charge work with Hurling Charge? Would I actually get +5 damage on both?
**Never mind the Powerful Charge question, glossary entry for Powerful Charge in Aberrations rule book specifies melee damage only. I'll keep this up for future reference, though.** | |
Successful Trades (31) | Trades Pending (0)
12th Place in the 2005 Nationals, and I owe it all to the Minis Training Montage.
Champion of Celestial Giant Stag Beetles | |
|
Takasi
Warrior
287 Posts
| | 04/27/2005 4:50 PM |
| Question about VPs. I didn't notice the new rules for Deathknell (don't have a box with me at work), but according to this thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=420005
Guy Fullerton says that minions and summoned creatures now provide VPs in casual, league and tournament play. This originally came out of the DCI rules back in September but post Deathknell it applies to the standard rules.
Since we are following the standard rules shouldn't we be following this update? For example, if I destroyed a Grim Necromancer then all of his summoned undead are immediately destroyed and I gain 55 points instead of 35.
Support troops do not apply to this rule. | |
| |
|
lurch_E_bean
Underboss
1058 Posts
| | 04/27/2005 9:44 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by TKort
I think that if a creature shows up and performs well for you and manages to survive to revel in victory with the rest of your troops, there is no reason you shouldn't offer that creature a ranking position in your army, if you so desire. But I think that this should eliminate that creature's potential to be summoned from that point on.. therefore only allowing it in your warband as a normal creature..
...
Anyways, IMHO, you shouldn't be able to summon in your LTs at will, but if a summoned creature is all you got kickin' around, it beats having to burn the 500xp on nothin' :(.
I agree with this, I was going to post it after I thought of it, but TKort beat me to it. I think you shouldn't be allowed to summon a creature that is currently a Lt., but a summoned creature can BECOME a Lt. after the match. | |
Successful Trades (31) | Trades Pending (0)
12th Place in the 2005 Nationals, and I owe it all to the Minis Training Montage.
Champion of Celestial Giant Stag Beetles | |
| E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/27/2005 10:44 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Takasi
Question about VPs. I didn't notice the new rules for Deathknell (don't have a box with me at work), but according to this thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=420005
Guy Fullerton says that minions and summoned creatures now provide VPs in casual, league and tournament play.
As you say since we use casual rules, Minions and Summoned creatures will now count for Victory Points. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
| E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/27/2005 10:46 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by lurch_E_bean
quote:
Originally posted by lurch_E_bean
Also, I have a question about an item I just got. I got a +1 shield of fireballs, and my question is after I use the two fireballs, do I have nothing left or a +1 shield? If I have a +1 shield, could that now be considered a minor item that I could trade in?
Lost in the riff-raff, still needs answering.
Good question, and I like your solution, we'll go with that. I'll add it. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
AngryIrish
Warrior
313 Posts
| | 04/28/2005 1:41 PM |
| | Just wondering about the new spells from Deathknell, especially Summon Undead III. Are they included yet into the spell progression charts, or are they going to be at all. Just wondering because after I win in week16(hehe, [:p]) it'd be hot to take summon undead again. | |
"I'm feelin pretty good today. I don't think anything could make me angry"
"The English"
"AAAAARRRRGGGGGG" | |
| E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 04/28/2005 6:11 PM |
| I think you already can?
Form the Eternal Campaign Rules:
"At each new [spell progression]level warlord spellcasters may gain an additional casting of a spell of the appropriate level they can already cast, or an additional casting of a new spell from table...."
| |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
AngryIrish
Warrior
313 Posts
| | 04/29/2005 12:23 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by galneweinhaw
I think you already can?
Form the Eternal Campaign Rules:
"At each new [spell progression]level warlord spellcasters may gain an additional casting of a spell of the appropriate level they can already cast, or an additional casting of a new spell from table...."
Ahh, who asked the question without looking at the rules first......this guy.[:I] | |
"I'm feelin pretty good today. I don't think anything could make me angry"
"The English"
"AAAAARRRRGGGGGG" | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/02/2005 1:09 PM |
| (1) [] Quick Strike (armor, potion, etc.) - how does this work? I interpreted as: During that creature's turn, it can take an immediate free attack (as long as it's not helpless, etc.). Is that correct?
(2) An item that casts a spell-effect, such as +1 Armor [][] Lightning Bolt (or whatever) - is the Lightning Bolt treated as a spell? Does casting it replace attacks? Is it a special Ability instead of a spell? Maybe it's in the text but I missed it... | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
| E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 05/03/2005 3:10 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
(1) [] Quick Strike (armor, potion, etc.) - how does this work? I interpreted as: During that creature's turn, it can take an immediate free attack (as long as it's not helpless, etc.). Is that correct?
Yep.
quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
(2) An item that casts a spell-effect, such as +1 Armor [][] Lightning Bolt (or whatever) - is the Lightning Bolt treated as a spell? Does casting it replace attacks? Is it a special Ability instead of a spell? Maybe it's in the text but I missed it...
I think this is in the MHB, can someone please confirm? | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/03/2005 10:54 AM |
| I did learn a couple of things while re-reading the magic items section:
1) Incorporeal creatures cannot use magic items
2) Items that require activation require INT3 or more to use
3) Drinking a potion is handled like casting a range self spell
The only "clue" sentence I found was "Certain other magic items duplicate the effects of spells, using a spell's name in their description." Since it implies duplicating a spells' effect, does it duplicate also the game mechanics of casting that spell?
What is really important here is:Can you "base" a creature with a magic item that duplicates a spell effect to prevent the spell effect from being using? | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 05/05/2005 9:56 AM |
| I had another idea for weapons to add to the table.
Reach - gain Melee Reach 2
Extra Range - range attack 6 increased range 12
Since you have to choose ranged or melee when you pick up a weapon, these two could be combined. If those were Medium Items, the corresponding Major Item could be:
Gain Melee Reach 3 or ranged attack 6 increased to sight | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/06/2005 5:03 PM |
| PROPOSAL:
Allow a Warlord to trade in one Major item plus one Minor item to gain (roll for) one different Major item, after battle in addition to other gains or trades.
Thus a warlord may divest of useless items, but at the cost of an additional minor item lost. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
| E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 05/08/2005 10:51 AM |
| | hey guys, out of town last week and this week. I'll make sure I read through all the suggestions when I get back. | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 3:17 PM |
| Magic Item/Spells Questions:
(1) Scrolls--Must the caster already know the spell to be put on a scroll, or can any spell of the appropriate level be on the scroll?
(2) Invisibility--Is casting an offensive spell or using a special ability an "attack" ending the invisibility?
(3) Iron Flask--It is listed as [], that is a single use per game correct? Is capturing an Outsider and freeing an Outsider more than one use? For example, the owner cannot capture an Outsider during a match and then release it under control in the same match. Is this correct? | |
| |
|
lurch_E_bean
Underboss
1058 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 4:49 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Zippy
PROPOSAL:
Allow a Warlord to trade in one Major item plus one Minor item to gain (roll for) one different Major item, after battle in addition to other gains or trades.
Thus a warlord may divest of useless items, but at the cost of an additional minor item lost.
I don't know. It's a tough call. This way you can get a Major Item for losing a match, which doesn't seem right. However, the current way you have to give up a won medium item and the major item to get a new major item. It's a thin line to walk if you want to stay fair and balanced. | |
Successful Trades (31) | Trades Pending (0)
12th Place in the 2005 Nationals, and I owe it all to the Minis Training Montage.
Champion of Celestial Giant Stag Beetles | |
|
Takasi
Warrior
287 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 5:14 PM |
| Proposal:
If a Commander with only one attack raises his attack bonus above 10, add a second attack at -5 the primary attack.
For example, an Inspiring Marshal has +7 (10 Magic) attack. After gaining 3 levels, he should have an attack of +10/+5 (10 Magic).
When a Commander reaches a primary attack bonus of 15 and every five increments thereafter, add 5 to his damage.
For example, Urthok the Vicious has a melee attack of +11/+6 (10). After gaining 4 levels, he should have an attack of +15/+10 (15).
These changes apply to both ranged and melee attacks. These changes do not apply if a warlord has a limited number of attacks per skirmish (specifically, Urthok the Vicious and Hobgoblin Sergeant ranged attacks).
What does everyone think? I feel this method follows the RPG more closely, but will probably change the balance and usefulness of certain commanders. Most of the commanders out there are spellcasters, and this really only applies to fighting warlord who, IMO, kind of get the shaft if they only have a single attack.
I've created a list of potential eligible warlords under 35 points who would make better fighting warlords than spellcasting warlords under these new rules. It comes down to these 20 choices:
Snig the Axe
Melee +7 (10): 0 Levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 3 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 8 levels
Ranged +7 (5): 0 levels
Ranged +10/+5 (5): 3 levels
Ranged +15/+10 (10): 8 levels
Cleric of Kord
Melee +13 (20): 0 levels
Melee +15 (25): 2 levels
Melee +20 (30): 7 levels
Gnoll Sergeant
Melee +9 (15): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (15): 1 level
Melee +15/+10 (20): 6 levels
Regdar
Melee +7 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 3 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 8 levels
Ranged +6 (5): 0 levels
Ranged +10/+5 (5): 4 levels
Ranged +15/+10 (10): 9 levels
Copper Samurai
Melee +10/+5 (10): 0 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 5 levels
Melee +20/+15 (20): 10 levels
Ranged +10/+5 (5): 0 levels
Ranged +15/+10 (5): 5 levels
Ranged +20/+15 (10): 10 levels
Skullsplitter
Melee +9 (15): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (15): 1 level
Melee +15/+10 (20): 6 levels
Elf Ranger
Melee +3/+3 (5): 0 levels
Melee +10/+10/+5/+5 (5): 7 levels
Ranged +5 (5): 0 levels
Ranged +10/+5 (5): 5 levels
Ranged +15/+10 (10): 10 levels
Orc Sergeant
Melee +7 (15): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (20): 3 levels
Melee +15/+10 (25): 8 levels
Drow Sergeant
Melee +6 (5): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (5): 4 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 9 levels
Bladesinger
Melee +15/+10 (5): 0 levels
Melee +20/+15 (10): 5 levels
Melee +25/+20 (15): 10 levels
War Chanter
Melee +8/+8 (10/5): 0 levels
Melee +10/+10/+5/+5 (10/5/10/5): 2 levels
Melee +15/+15/+10/+10 (15/10/15/10): 7 levels
Hobgoblin Sergeant
Melee +7 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 3 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 8 levels
Cleric of Gruumsh
Melee +6 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 4 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 9 levels
Half-Orc Fighter
Melee +7 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 3 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 8 levels
Tiefling Captain
Melee +6 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 4 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 9 levels
Dwarf Sergeant
Melee +4 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 6 levels
Inspiring Marshal
Melee +6 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 4 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 9 levels
Dwarf Caver
Melee +7/+7 (5): 0 levels
Melee +10/+10/+5/+5 (5): 3 levels
Melee +15/+15/+10/+10 (10): 8 levels
Urthok the Vicious
Melee +11/+6 (10): 0 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 4 levels
Melee +20/+15 (20): 9 levels
Sword of Heironeous
Melee +8 (10): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (10): 2 levels
Melee +15/+10 (15): 7 levels
What do you think? Do you any of these look unbalanced? I would really like to see this implemented in the future (even though it would really help Mhir out) because right now I feel like single attack warlords are underpowered in the latter end of this campaign game. The only oddball in the crew is the cleric of kord (it's arguable that he might be a better spellcaster in the longrun under these rules. What does everyone think? | |
| |
|
Takasi
Warrior
287 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 5:19 PM |
| After rereading this, I need to add some 30-second later errata:
Orc Sergeant
Melee +7 (15): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (15): 3 levels
Melee +15/+10 (20): 8 levels
Drow Sergeant
Melee +6 (5): 0 levels
Melee +10/+5 (5): 4 levels
Melee +15/+10 (10): 9 levels | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 5:26 PM |
| I think it would be unbalancing and here's why--(1) spell casting warlords are already at a bit of a disadvantage by only getting half the number of hit points per level, this would only broaden the disadvantage; (2) I thought in the RPG the number of attacks came from the number of weapons proficiencies the character had and maybe Dex. bonus, etc. and damage comes from weapon type and strength. So advancing levels should not impact this. We might should have a feat of additional attack at half normal attack and then have that increase with the rest of the attack stats. The feat would be either melee or ranged; and (3) Even with the support troops I think the lower level warlords are often at a disadvantage, especially considering some of the magic items out there, so I wouldn't want to further that disadvantage.
Edit--I know spellcasters get additional spells, but realistically given time constraints, etc. it is rare for spellcasters to be able to cast all of their spells. They may get more powerful spells, but that means that some of the older, less powerful spells do not get cast and are therefore wasted. So there's a diminishing return as spellcasters advance, where warriors do not face that situation; giving them an additional attack and more damage would multiply that. | |
| |
|
jjbeezer
Sergeant
633 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 5:27 PM |
| My main concern about this adaptation to the rules from the RPG is that strength bonuses are added in to the current DDM attack bonus. Bumping to another attack at +10 would not take that into account.
I can't think of a RPG reason that the damage would go up over time. We get magic equipment which would be the primary way in the RPG to increase damage (I think?).
This change would add a lot of power to the warlords. As they level up, they are already getting a bonus of being better for the same cost. What are some other thoughts on the issue? | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/11/2005 5:41 PM |
| quote:
However, the current way you have to give up a won medium item and the major item to get a new major item. It's a thin line to walk if you want to stay fair and balanced.
I did not see this in the rules - I was just proposing SOME way to exchange a major item if you roll something useless, since at major and minor level it's a breeze to trade up out of a useless item. Where is the current method for exchanging a major item listed, I am missing it? | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/11/2005 5:58 PM |
| Takasi, several thoughts:
1) You can click the "edit" icon and edit your original post rather than posting a separate errata message.
2) Very interesting idea. May need a little tweaking. War Chanter becomes one of the best high level warlords under these rules, he might become broken!
3) Perhaps somewhere in between current (nothing) and your proposal - either a warlord can gain an extra attack OR can gain +5 dmg per (melee or ranged) attack, but not both. Also, rather than setting some warlords to hit major bonuses right off the bat at level +1, set warlord levels at which these bonuses occur (for example, at +5 warlord non-spell-progression levels, gain add'l attack at -5 from lowest rated attack). Something simplified so we do not need a per-creature chart.
4) Perhaps this goes to a back burner "EC version 2" category, where we make sweeping changes and bake in all the juicy stuff from this thread people seem to like.
Mind you I stand to gain a fair bonus from this change - and I agree it follows RPG methodology much better. I also agree that a bladesinger +3 levels, +15HP, []RoE, []Melf's Arrow, []Fireball has a LOT more per level increase than an Orc Sergeant at +3 levels, +3 att, and +30HP, and EC bears some balancing. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
Takasi
Warrior
287 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 6:35 PM |
| rgrayua:
1) Commanders rarely jump into the heat of the battle. Usually they hang out behind for support. Spellcasting units can add utility, whereas fighters usually sit behind because they don't do enough damage or don't have enough hits to risk losing your warlord.
2) In the RPG your # of attacks go up based on your character levels. For fighter types, it's an extra attack every 5 levels. Since DDM units generally don't have three or more attacks, additional damage is dealt.
jjbeezer:
That's a great point. Strength is not factored in. I can redo the options based on the unit's base level rather than attack bonus. I don't think it would make too much of a difference though. Another alternative is to go strictly by warlord level; at level 5 you get a 2nd attack, at level 10 you get +5 damage.
For the RPG reason, see the comment above. Since DDM generally does not use more than 2 attacks per unit, damage is increased to compensate for the additional attacks in the RPG.
Higher level spellcasting warlords are far more helpful IMO than combat warlords. With the possible exception of Urthok, I can't imagine why you'd want to expose a SoH or Inspiring Marshal with 8 or 9 fighter levels to use as a fighter until the very end of a match. A spellcaster however can use sanctuary, bear's endurance and cure wounds to get all the benefits of the fighter class with even more versitility. | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 05/11/2005 8:30 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by jjbeezer
I know the Mini's game and the RPG are similar but not the same. A quick inspection of the SRD shows that the skeleton and zombie templates remove a creatures intelegence score. This rules them out of Lt. status (That is unless they published an Int score greater than 8 on the back of the card). (Int of - is less than 8) However, undead such as a Wight or Ghoul both have listed Int scores above 8.
Just wondering, so an undead can be a lieutenant as long as it has an Int score of at least 8 on the back of the card right? | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/11/2005 8:49 PM |
| quote:
Just wondering, so an undead can be a lieutenant as long as it has an Int score of at least 8 on the back of the card right?
Yup, and 35 pts. or less. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 05/12/2005 9:45 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Takasi
With the possible exception of Urthok, I can't imagine why you'd want to expose a SoH or Inspiring Marshal with 8 or 9 fighter levels to use as a fighter until the very end of a match. A spellcaster however can use sanctuary, bear's endurance and cure wounds to get all the benefits of the fighter class with even more versitility.
I don't see how my Drow Wizard with +1 attack for 5 damage gets any of the benefits of the fighter class. There may be some Clerics that get the benefit of both, but that's kind of the way I viewed Clerics as Warrior Priests.
The hypothetical Sword of Heironeous with 8 or 9 fighter levels would have at least 115 hit points (35 base + 10 for 8 levels). Factor in an AC of at least 21 (with at least one magic item), the ability to heal herself, +8 attack for 10 magic damage doesn't look that bad. Inspiring Marshall looks almost the same 115 hit points, AC20 +7 attack for 10 magic damage. Neither could single handedly go toe to toe with an Orc Champ or the Eye, but I don't think they should be able to, being significantly cheaper points wise (29 points vs. 39 & 44), plus being a commander and having spells. If people want Warlords to be front-line fighters I think there are options out there. If not, a feat allowing the pick-up of an additional attack is a fairer option in my opinion. Again, I think it's hard enough for a lower level warlord to fight a high level one as is, anything giving those warlords another advantage would be unbalancing. | |
| |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 05/12/2005 9:50 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by rgrayua
[quote]Originally posted by Takasi
With the possible exception of Urthok, I can't imagine why you'd want to expose a SoH or Inspiring Marshal with 8 or 9 fighter levels to use as a fighter until the very end of a match. A spellcaster however can use sanctuary, bear's endurance and cure wounds to get all the benefits of the fighter class with even more versitility.
I don't see how my Drow Wizard with +1 attack for 5 damage gets any of the benefits of the fighter class. There may be some Clerics that get the benefit of both, but that's kind of the way I viewed Clerics as Warrior Priests.
The hypothetical Sword of Heironeous with 8 or 9 fighter levels would have at least 115 hit points (35 base + 10 for 8 levels). Factor in an AC of at least 21 (with at least one magic item), the ability to heal herself, +8 attack for 10 magic damage doesn't look that bad. Inspiring Marshall looks almost the same 115 hit points, AC20 +7 attack for 10 magic damage. An opponent has to deal all 115 points to both, the SoH is fearless and with a Morale Save of at least +18, the IM is as good as fearless. Neither could single handedly go toe to toe with an Orc Champ or the Eye, but I don't think they should be able to, being significantly cheaper points wise (29 points vs. 39 & 44), plus being a commander and having spells. If people want Warlords to be front-line fighters I think there are options out there. If not, a feat allowing the pick-up of an additional attack is a fairer option in my opinion. Again, I think it's hard enough for a lower level warlord to fight a high level one as is, anything giving those warlords another advantage would be unbalancing. | |
| |
|
TKort
Sergeant
583 Posts
| | 05/12/2005 9:31 PM |
| Well I really like the idea as originally posted by Takasi; I'm behind anything that makes it more interesting to keep levelling the same warlord, and especially if it brings in aspects of the D&D RPG, which I also play.
It makes a tonnes of sense.. if you know the RPG at all, in fact the higher level characters among the minis are built on this exact rule.. as far as I know, any mini that has two attacks that are the same (ie first and second attack with same weapon) follow the -5 rule.. it only stands to reason that our little warlords, as they get stronger, would gain the same abilities. Granted, they might cause some serious problems for some lower level warlords.. but if the difference is that huge.. that means that they also have to deal with the lower level's huge group of support troops.
From my EC point-of-view, it would personally make a huge difference, since Bertha, as many of you know... is a total tank, except she's got no guns to back it up.. total attack bonus tops out around 11 or 12 with spells and/or magic items, and at one attack it's a long wait until next try.. at least if she had a second attack I'd get two shots at a lucky 20. It would make it worth while to park her 28AC in the front lines for a while and swing away :).
I think in terms of balance, we're looking at it the wrong way.. here's how I see it:
When a warlord gains a fighter level, their attacks gain +1, that's it (well plus hps of course)
When a warlord gains a caster level, they get to choose a whole new spell from a big list, could be one of dozens of spells. If it were balanced, they would instead just gain one more casting of an existing spell or spell level.
IMO it is unbalanced now, and Takasi's idea would bring the balance a little bit closer to centre.
Tkort | |
| |
|
Zippy
Underboss
1992 Posts
Whitewater, WI
| | 05/12/2005 10:18 PM |
| The even bigger picture is balancing:
* warlords of same level should get about the same power increase
* support troops need to account for the difference in items and warlord levels
* item progression and power
* band points optimized to handle unfair advantages and remove "dice wars" but still allow band building and warlord construction advantages
I would argue that fighter vs. spellcaster levels are not quite balanced right now. The options are to strengthen fighter leveling, weaken spellcaster leveling, or a little of each.
Then looking at the newwarlord power increase per level, we would have to consider support troops bolster or nerf and war band size by warlord level chart update.
Which is why I say:
1) I really like the idea!
2) I really think it should be a *whole system* revamp ("EC2") and implemented as a clean start, since to execute this type of change fairly is broad and requires the system to be tested & tweak. A rash rules change of this magnitude could seriously upset play balance. | |
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Reference Thread, H/W List, Champion of the Catoblepas | |
|
rgrayua
Sergeant
400 Posts
| | 05/13/2005 9:28 AM |
| | Again, spellcasters rarely get to use all of their spells. I have ten spells now, how often do games go ten rounds? So there are diminishing returns on the spellcasters advances. With the point system, you are still talking about a figure that costs less than 35 points. If we go this route (which I strongly oppose), I believe the support troops should be increased for lower level warlords, especially for warlords that have reached those kind of levels. I haven't finished looking at that many matches, but I have a sneaking suspicion (based on a few weeks' review) that lower level warlords in general do not fare to well against the higher level ones, especially the top end of the scale. | |
| |
| 
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 05/14/2005 8:57 PM |
| When comparing fighters to fighters, I'd say that your leveling options might work out. I'm not convinced that spellcasters are too powerful though. Can they be more helpful in the background? Absolutely. Unfortunately, they can also be killed quite easily. Spell resistant units can cause them grief. Beholders can make them obsolete. Usually, the best thing to do to them is to base them with another unit or initiate combat quickly so they can't use all their spells. For every round of combat, they can only get off 1 or maybe 2 spells if they have quick cast.
The fact of the matter is that some commanders (Urthok is probably at the top of the list) level up much better than other commanders. If you start to allow all fighting commanders to level up like Urthok, you really limit the effectiveness of spellcasting commanders.
If you really want to head down this path, I have 2 ways to approach it.
First, set up rules to build a commander from scratch. Each attribute costs so many points to aquire and certain attributes can only be achieved at certain levels. Commander ratings and effects would cost certain points. Spells and spell levels cost certain points. If you really want an RPG miniature game, make one.
Second, when warlords level up, make their cost go up. Assign costs based on what effects they get. +1 attack and +10 hit points is x number of points. If you really want uber warlords, pay the cost for uber warlords and make them fight that way. | |
| |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
AngryIrish
Warrior
313 Posts
| | 05/15/2005 11:53 PM |
| | so is there anyway as of yet dealing with leveling of lieutenants with Psionics? | |
"I'm feelin pretty good today. I don't think anything could make me angry"
"The English"
"AAAAARRRRGGGGGG" | |
|
Avatar of Skirmishes
tullywi
Sergeant
982 Posts
| | 05/15/2005 11:54 PM |
| Hey Chris, I agree. Lieutenants are nice until you need to level them up and they gain their commander rating. They lose some of their playablity after that.
On a somewhat related note: Who is going to be the first to start up a commander without a commander effect? | |
| |
|
lurch_E_bean
Underboss
1058 Posts
| | 05/16/2005 1:36 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by AngryIrish
so is there anyway as of yet dealing with leveling of lieutenants with Psionics?
Actually, I was tinkering with making a table for new powers, and thinking of a way to advance. Mostly I just got a list of powers and minis conversions... My only idea for advancement was treat it similarly to a sorcerer, but give out 1, 3, 5, and 7 power points instead of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell slots. I just leveled the augments (I didn't augment too many) to 1, 3, 5, etc. points. Stuff like Ialdabode's 2pp mind thrust can just be unique to that character. I can post the list if people are interested. I made two lists, one for psions and one for psychic warriors. I just didn't think Psy Wars should be mind thrusting... | |
Successful Trades (31) | Trades Pending (0)
12th Place in the 2005 Nationals, and I owe it all to the Minis Training Montage.
Champion of Celestial Giant Stag Beetles | |
| The Defenestrator
AesophDarkfable
Warlord
5628 Posts
| | 05/16/2005 10:28 AM |
| Two question I wanted some clarification on.
1st. do you have to be a druid to take the beastmaster +2 warlord feat
2nd. Can you put a second commander in your band from the points or do you have to wait until one of your lt. qualify to get one? | |
Im out- find me on Hordelings if you want to chat. | |
| E.C. Organizer
galneweinhaw
Commander
2646 Posts
| | 05/16/2005 11:51 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by AesophDarkfable
Two question I wanted some clarification on.
1st. do you have to be a druid to take the beastmaster +2 warlord feat
2nd. Can you put a second commander in your band from the points or do you have to wait until one of your lt. qualify to get one?
1 - You must already have the Beastmaster ability (as the feat is Improved Beastmaster)
2 - Yes you can (subject to normal campaign limitations, ie he can't have a higher commander rating than your warlord.) | |
Join the Eternal Skirmish Campaign.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. ~Dr Seuss | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |