Search results

...right. But my point was, the description of Narrative Rules (player describes what effects they want to link, this translates into a modifier) sounds a lot like the existing Improvisation Rules. So what's the difference?

Yeah, the new info changes a lot. I go on about it at length here, but the short of it is: * given that things we usually consider as maneuvers are instead located in the modules, I'm not sure what the theme-based core Maneuvers are. My guess is that they are a package of advanced techniques...

Overall, I like the idea of the Rogue being about more than Sneak Attack damage; however, I'm more of a fan of the Rogue having a suite of different things they can do so that they are making choices every round as opposed to every level. One of the things I liked about the Complete Thief's...

Why should that cause suspension of disbelief problems? At the level at which you're fighting Great Wyrms, the Fighter should be the equivalent of Hercules, Grappling Nemean Lions and Cretan Bulls, etc. The only problem that I can see is effectiveness - and that's a matter of adjusting math...

True, but how the narrative is to be resolved is introduced by the DM, and again, you need to keep the difficulty level below the level at which it becomes an active disincentive for people to try. First of all, it's three rolls: roll to slide, roll to grab, and roll to attack at a penalty. So...

The issue is that the more resolution points you have, the more likely it is for a player to roll badly, and since the maneuver requires all of them to succeed for the player to accomplish their narrative desires, it makes the likelihood of overall success that much lower. Keep in mind, while...

Let's keep in mind that in the Design Goals, the Fighter's mundaneness is relative to mythic heroism - the Fighter shouldn't be a Hexblade/Swordsage/etc., but rather Beowulf and Roland. So a Level 1 Fighter should be Bull Rushing Orcs and scattering them about with abandon, but a Level 20...

I would argue it is slower. Rolling a dice takes a certain amount of time (although they can be rolled simultaneously), whereas you already know the DC - the extra time especially kicks in after the first attempt, because in rounds 2-on I know the DC I'm trying to hit, versus having to wait for...

I think that opposed checks slow gameplay down and take success or failure out of the hands of the player, it also introduces needless divergence from the otherwise standard resolution mechanism of rolling against a fixed target number. Sorry, I wasn't being clear. What I was getting at was...

Either Fighter could try this, since Improvise Action would be common to both. The difference between them and a non-fighter would be the lack of penalties (no Disadvantage, for example) and getting to do damage as well. Um...no. Why should the simple fighter have a higher bonus to hit and...

More or less, yes, although I would prefer to avoid opposed Dex checks. Here's how I hope it would also go: DM: "In the tavern, you are off to one side of a long table and your enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night, so the floor's kind of...

I don't think we actually differ about the simple fighter. As long as the math balances out between the two, there's no reason why the resolution mechanisms couldn't be simplified as well. Although I don't think the resolution mechanisms for the complex fighter would be that complex - Maneuvers...

Herschel, this is what I was getting at in terms of how the two would balance against each other. However, my understanding of how simple and complex options would work is that they'd be decisions made by the DM about all classes, similar to choosing between high and low magic settings. So the...

I like these themes especially, as they emphasize the skill and intelligence of a trained and experience martial combatant as opposed to the Fighter being a brainless muscle-man. A Fighter that knows themselves, and their opponents should be formidable in combating monsters that would be...

How? All the simple fighter has to do is play as they do right now; they do a standard attack or say "I want to do X" and the DM tells them what effect a successful roll would have. Neonchameleon - first, the Fighter gets the setup hits too while the target is prone or disarmed or dazed or...

You'd think so, but honestly, it hasn't worked that way in the past. As a Fighter, you're giving up a lot of damage (especially when you figure in iterative attacks and/or powers) to do a maneuver for the chance of someone else doing more damage. And at least in the past, the penalties involved...

The original idea was figuring out a way for Fighters to be better at maneuvers than other classes and avoid the 100% tradeoff between maneuvers and damage that often meant maneuvers went unused because doing straight damage ended the combat more quickly and thus were superior to the base...

Sure. A set of basic Maneuvers (along with rules for the Improvise Maneuver) would be right there in the book for the DM to look up, all the mechanically simple fighter would have to do is divide their damage by 1/2 when they wanted to perform tactically. As for equal effectiveness, it would...

I think there's a way to allow the simple fighter to contribute while allowing greater tactical utility for the complex fighter. Let's say that the simple fighter just did a straight attack for normal damage, but the complex fighter could choose to do 1/2 damage and trip in the same attack. Both...

Erm. Why? Isn't that in the Fighter Design Goals?