![]() In addition, the designers of 2nd edition made sure that non-casters haveĪ good opportunity to prevent the casting of spells in combat. In 2nd edition AD&D, the rules for casting in combat are spelled out very clearly, probably more clearly than both earlier and later versions of the game. Most importantly is the balance between casters and non-casters. The non-Warriors make up for their general combat inferiority by having situational combat boosters, such as magic or backstabbing, and also special skills and powers. The non-Fighter Warriors make up for their slightly inferior combat ability by having special skills and powers. So there are 3 groups of combat efficiency: Fighters, non-Fighter Warriors, and non-Warriors. On top of that, Fighters who specialize in a weapon can achieve an even better progression for multiple attacks. I like the approach that 2nd edition takes with Warriors-which is to give all Warriors, Fighter and non-Fighter alike, a standard progression for multiple attacks that is better than non-Warriors. You mentioned that non-Fighter warriors in C&C don't get multiple attacks, ![]() Regardless of how strong/weak the Fighter is in C&C (which I never heard of before until now), I think the 2nd edition Fighter is fine as he is in this version. I think the fighter in C&C is a better than the fighter in 2E, when compared to the other warrior types. I'll cross post this into C&C forums as well.) So I see things just the opposite, C&C removed the shaft from the fighter. Now if you compare the two fighter head to head the 2E fighter might look better, but that is not fair it is two different systems, when compared to the other warrior type characters in thier respective systems the C&C fighter is the clear winner. Clearly head and shoulders above the other warrior classes in a straight fight. In C&C the fighter has the best attack rank, weapon specialization for free, combat dominance (even if you don't like it) and is the only class to get multiple attacks. When compared to the other warrior types in 2E the only thing the fighter has the other two do not is weapon specialization, and he must give up a WP slot to get. In C&C the only the fighter gains additional attacks.Ĥ) Combat Dominance Even if you don't like it, the C&C fighter has it (and it doesn't cost him anything) the 2E fighter has nothing.ĥ) XP both classes progress at a faster when compared to paladins & rangers so they are even there. (but see #3 below)ģ) Multiple Attacks In in 2E all warrior type characters gain multiple attacks(at the same rate as the fighter unless he specializes). Now in 2E it does grant extra attacks sooner than he would get if not specialized. In 2E ir grants a +1/+2 bonus, in C&C in C&C it is +1/+1 at first level, then +2/+2 at seventh level, so at low level slight edge to 2E, at higher levels slight edge to C&C. In 2E he is no better than the other warriors.Ģ) Weapon Specialization In both systems only the fighter can specialize (PHBs only), in 2E this costs him a WP, in C&C its free. So with everything being equal in C&C he is always better in a straight fight than anyone else. ![]() As he advances in levels in 2E all the other warrior types have the same Thaco, in C&C he is always one better. In C&C his bth is +1 (Equal to a 19 Thaco), only the fighter gets this, not even the other warrior types (ranger, paladin etc) get this. ![]() I think the fighter in C&C is a better than the fighter in 2E, when compared to the other warrior types.ġ) First Thaco/bth In 2E, at first level, his Thaco is the same as every other class inclding the mage, so he fights no better than anyone else at first level. Doomis wrote:Not to take this thread off topic, but does anyone else feel that the fighter really got shafted from 2e to C&C? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |