Alternate advances for Dwarvish Fighter and Orcish Grunt?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
The Green Tooth
- Posts: 27
- Joined: November 30th, 2005, 10:25 pm
"marksman" doesn't fit well on a sword 
Magical weapons with the northerners seem out of place, also. Charge is nice, maybe even poisoned blades? (2nd or 3rd level unit?) Perhaps adding nets (slow) to a branch of grunts?
And since orcs are (thought by some) to have a strength related hierarchy, perhaps a leadership skill for 2nd level & higher "grunts"?
Magical weapons with the northerners seem out of place, also. Charge is nice, maybe even poisoned blades? (2nd or 3rd level unit?) Perhaps adding nets (slow) to a branch of grunts?And since orcs are (thought by some) to have a strength related hierarchy, perhaps a leadership skill for 2nd level & higher "grunts"?
Unless you throw it... Hmm... that gives me an idea. Swordchucks!The Green Tooth wrote:"marksman" doesn't fit well on a sword
Someone give marksman to the Warrior and Warlord, according to the description, they are very proefficient with their swords. Then the charge branch can be kept as the more damaging option, at least when attacking (13*2*2=52, okay, maybe it needs a wee bit toning down).
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me 
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Sure, that's fine to say for MPers, but they're really, really boring in campaigns. (Unlike elves, or loyalists - they both have pretty diverse trees that it is fun to explore.)irrevenant wrote:IMO, Northerners don't need diversifying. As they are, they serve their role as ravenous horde well - I wouldn't want to see them become too nuanced.
I fail to see how adding branches to the units will make them more "nuanced" - as long as you do it right. A bladesmaster, if done right, could be a really good addition.
[quote="The Green Tooth]"marksman" doesn't fit well on a sword[/quote]
Why? Just because of the name "marksman"? That can (I'm fairly certain) be changed. In any case, we shouldn't let a mis-named specialty force us to design bad units.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
-
Casual User
- Posts: 475
- Joined: March 11th, 2005, 5:05 pm
Good afternoon!
1. Hum ... I already have proposed a branching for the dwarf which was met with much appreciation ... and I even made the graphics for it...
2. Marksman is a good way to simulate skill at arms, and I believe the fencer line should have marksman.
3. I'm not quite sure I like it for orcs though. Personally, I think better ideas would be :
I. the already proposed charging orc (for a savage faction, orcs lack heavy hitters).
II. a dead-end level 2 orc with a pike (or hallberd). It would help northerners deal with cavalry and drakes.
1. Hum ... I already have proposed a branching for the dwarf which was met with much appreciation ... and I even made the graphics for it...
2. Marksman is a good way to simulate skill at arms, and I believe the fencer line should have marksman.
3. I'm not quite sure I like it for orcs though. Personally, I think better ideas would be :
I. the already proposed charging orc (for a savage faction, orcs lack heavy hitters).
II. a dead-end level 2 orc with a pike (or hallberd). It would help northerners deal with cavalry and drakes.
Noyga wrote:A branch with a mace or a morningstar could be cool
This is somewhat off-topic, but I am currently working on an alternative Orc faction. Some of the units included are a charging Orc with a morning star, and an unarmed fighter that might gain berserk.Casual User wrote:the already proposed charging orc
The point is...
One of my concerns when thinking up units was to avoid a clone of the established Northerner faction. However with if the ideas I have quoted above (charging orc, morning star/flail) are included it seems there will be a danger of the oppisite happening. This could render some of my ideas obsolete.
I do not actually oppose the ideas for what they are. Also I realise that the risk of "parallel-ing" my new faction is not a solid reason to oppose these changes, as it is still in the earliest stages of development.
So I am against the charging orc and the flail orc. Not because the ideas are bad, but because they interfere with my own.
That said, I am still in agreement with Temuchin Khan's original proposal of an alternate Grunt line with markman.
So concludes my two cents worth.
-
irrevenant
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 3692
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
- Location: I'm all around you.
Is there any reason every faction needs to be suitable to base a campaign on?turin wrote:Sure, that's fine to say for MPers, but they're really, really boring in campaigns. (Unlike elves, or loyalists - they both have pretty diverse trees that it is fun to explore.)irrevenant wrote:IMO, Northerners don't need diversifying. As they are, they serve their role as ravenous horde well - I wouldn't want to see them become too nuanced.
Anyway, in a campaign anything goes: HttT hardly stuck to factional boundaries after all...
Good point. HttT uses:irrevenant wrote: Is there any reason every faction needs to be suitable to base a campaign on?
Anyway, in a campaign anything goes: HttT hardly stuck to factional boundaries after all...
1. Horsemen
2. Thieves
3. Gryphons
4. Dwarvish Fighters
5. Dwarvish Thunderers
Admittedly, they do not get Woses, but I'd rather have those 5 units than Woses.