Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BobTheNob" data-source="post: 5854992" data-attributes="member: 82425">Thats right, PF did have that. Thanks for pointing out.Its not perfect (wont get into a debate of its virtue) but it does show that there is thought out there what martial does can be modeled differently than a power structure. The thing I liked about it was that it said "this is how to use if you want to grapple" but if the player turned around and said something like "actually, I want to re-position him, not hold on to him"...so a sort of a maneavour where the player uses skill to momentarily twist and grapple to shift his opponents position. Using an improvised framework like this, they could.This is where the power approach leaves me flat. Under the power approach, IF you have a power that shifts no worries, but if you dont? Bad Luck. That shifting your opponent was the better option at the time is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is that you have the power and have a "use" of it available. To me its kinda artificial.Im just getting to a point with design where if I wanted I tight and well defined power structure with excellent mechanics, I would play Dragon Age on the PC. When it comes to P&P tabletop experience, I want  players to be able to think on the fly during the game and for the game to support them in being able to switch tactics as needs define rather than as their last level up choices did.</blockquote>