Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marshall" data-source="post: 5653500" data-attributes="member: 765"><p>Because you keep missing the point that spending no action is still making a decision. You havent moved, changed or eliminated a decision point, you've ONLY<strong> increased</strong> the complexity of that decision. Instead of a player deciding between At-will A and At-will B he is forced to make multiple decisions. </p><p>Do I want to change my stance? Pick from up to 7 options.</p><p>Can I change my stance? Y or N</p><p>What else could I do with this minor action? Almost Infinite options(Hyperbole, but enough that any hint of Paralysis is activated)</p><p>The ONLY thing that stances could have accomplished was to make one choice obvious and, again,<em> at-wills do that BETTER</em>. </p><p></p><p>There is absolutely no basis in fact that "I basic attack" is simpler than "I Hit it with My Sword" assuming HIWMS is mechanically an at-will basic attack with +1ab or "I Hit it Hard with My Sword" assuming HIHWMS is an at-will basic attack with +2 damage.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, its not. If you dont want it dont use it. By definition you are already playing tactically ineffective.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I call BS on this one. No one, and I mean NO-ONE, will find it more difficult to decide between using Power Strike I and Power Strike III. If someone had that kind of inability to make a decision than you wouldnt be able to have tactical engagement at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm ignoring it because its not true in the least. The stance mechanic is the least intuitive and nearly the most complex idiocy brought in by essentials. They took an <em>extremely</em> simple and intuitive mechanic and broke it into several different parts over multiple actions. At-wills have ALWAYS been a default choice kind of item. The only thing you are pointing to with these stances is a couple new simple at-will powers that are hidden among them. See HIWMS and HIHWMS above.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely, you come in a fraction of a percentage point above a base 4e class at-will spamming. Wonderful. Add in that the player is going to be tactically inept and you may as well take the sheet away during combat and just have him roll dice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Look at what happens when a Knight/Slayer falls unconscious.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why? You've already seen it. This is just the "Striker" Wizard build. I fully expect to see Sorcerer(Wizard) in Plane Below.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marshall, post: 5653500, member: 765"] Because you keep missing the point that spending no action is still making a decision. You havent moved, changed or eliminated a decision point, you've ONLY[b] increased[/b] the complexity of that decision. Instead of a player deciding between At-will A and At-will B he is forced to make multiple decisions. Do I want to change my stance? Pick from up to 7 options. Can I change my stance? Y or N What else could I do with this minor action? Almost Infinite options(Hyperbole, but enough that any hint of Paralysis is activated) The ONLY thing that stances could have accomplished was to make one choice obvious and, again,[i] at-wills do that BETTER[/i]. There is absolutely no basis in fact that "I basic attack" is simpler than "I Hit it with My Sword" assuming HIWMS is mechanically an at-will basic attack with +1ab or "I Hit it Hard with My Sword" assuming HIHWMS is an at-will basic attack with +2 damage. No, its not. If you dont want it dont use it. By definition you are already playing tactically ineffective. I call BS on this one. No one, and I mean NO-ONE, will find it more difficult to decide between using Power Strike I and Power Strike III. If someone had that kind of inability to make a decision than you wouldnt be able to have tactical engagement at all. I'm ignoring it because its not true in the least. The stance mechanic is the least intuitive and nearly the most complex idiocy brought in by essentials. They took an [i]extremely[/i] simple and intuitive mechanic and broke it into several different parts over multiple actions. At-wills have ALWAYS been a default choice kind of item. The only thing you are pointing to with these stances is a couple new simple at-will powers that are hidden among them. See HIWMS and HIHWMS above. Absolutely, you come in a fraction of a percentage point above a base 4e class at-will spamming. Wonderful. Add in that the player is going to be tactically inept and you may as well take the sheet away during combat and just have him roll dice. Look at what happens when a Knight/Slayer falls unconscious. Why? You've already seen it. This is just the "Striker" Wizard build. I fully expect to see Sorcerer(Wizard) in Plane Below. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?
Top