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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for
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="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5861948" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I am not a fan of that solution either...</p><p></p><p>When I play a Wizard, I don't want to <em>have </em>to choose a path. All I need is to take a look at spells of next level(s), and if I feel like playing a blaster then I'd pick damage-dealing spells, while if I feel like building myself an arsenal of "controller's" spells I pick the appropriate ones. But I also want to be able to mix them in whatever proportion I feel like: maybe one good blast is enough for me this time, and maybe next character I really want more blasters with different damage types, who knows? This is actually quite the normal way of playing a Wizard for me...</p><p></p><p>So why shouldn't the Fighter or anyone else allow for a similar approach? You have your long list of feats/powers, you just read the description and decide if you want all "striker's type" feats, or if you want to complement them with 1-2 "defender's type" feats or more.</p><p></p><p>If the designers really want to help players, just stick a tag on feats/power for beginners... that's all you need, non-beginners <strong>can read</strong>. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></p><p></p><p>Instead, introducing "paths" or "fighting styles" is <strong>bad design</strong>, because once they're the rule, it's hard to get away from them. Of course you can house rules them (but that's not a very nice argument), but it's not only the players who are stuck with them, it's the designers of further products who are.</p><p></p><p>It's ok if such "fighting styles" are <em>recommendations</em>, but not if they are <em>rules</em>. IIRC, 3ed Oriental Adventures took the right approach: they described martial arts styles as a series of feats (both core and OA-specific ones) but they didn't tell each PC to pick one, it was just description as in "if you want to call your PC as expert of style X, here are the feats that would make you look like that in combat", and then maybe if you did in fact take enough of those, you also unlocked some benefits, but they didn't force your PC to pick a style and then you must choose feats from that list or they were granted automatically.</p><p></p><p>This is the way to go IMHO to achieve both "tutored playing" for beginners and freedom for experts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5861948, member: 1465"] I am not a fan of that solution either... When I play a Wizard, I don't want to [I]have [/I]to choose a path. All I need is to take a look at spells of next level(s), and if I feel like playing a blaster then I'd pick damage-dealing spells, while if I feel like building myself an arsenal of "controller's" spells I pick the appropriate ones. But I also want to be able to mix them in whatever proportion I feel like: maybe one good blast is enough for me this time, and maybe next character I really want more blasters with different damage types, who knows? This is actually quite the normal way of playing a Wizard for me... So why shouldn't the Fighter or anyone else allow for a similar approach? You have your long list of feats/powers, you just read the description and decide if you want all "striker's type" feats, or if you want to complement them with 1-2 "defender's type" feats or more. If the designers really want to help players, just stick a tag on feats/power for beginners... that's all you need, non-beginners [B]can read[/B]. :cool: Instead, introducing "paths" or "fighting styles" is [B]bad design[/B], because once they're the rule, it's hard to get away from them. Of course you can house rules them (but that's not a very nice argument), but it's not only the players who are stuck with them, it's the designers of further products who are. It's ok if such "fighting styles" are [I]recommendations[/I], but not if they are [I]rules[/I]. IIRC, 3ed Oriental Adventures took the right approach: they described martial arts styles as a series of feats (both core and OA-specific ones) but they didn't tell each PC to pick one, it was just description as in "if you want to call your PC as expert of style X, here are the feats that would make you look like that in combat", and then maybe if you did in fact take enough of those, you also unlocked some benefits, but they didn't force your PC to pick a style and then you must choose feats from that list or they were granted automatically. This is the way to go IMHO to achieve both "tutored playing" for beginners and freedom for experts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for
Top