Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5861290" data-attributes="member: 1544">No, that's wrong. The whole point of having the -5 penalty is to enable the same action to be used more than once per encounter, whilst preventing it from being the best option all of the time. I don't agree that we want to limit things to once per encounter at all. * Special moves should be better than standard attacks in certain situations.* Those situations can come up more than once per encounter* Why limit the number of times you can attempt it?Going back to the Jacki Chan Drunken Master video - how many times does he try to trip his opponent? A lot more than one. Yes he tries it in different ways, but DND combat is too abstract to differentiate on that level. If I kick my opponent, I don't specify if it's a high kick or a low kick.[on a related note] Genre fiction only takes you so far. Books and movies have to hold your attention. In order to do that they cannot be repetitious. Games have other means with which to hold your attention, and repetition in these areas is less disastrous. If repetition were such a problem, original DND would never have got off the ground with such basic attacks in the first place. With gaming, a huge amount of variety comes through other means. There's a difference between an attack bonus, and being able to apply enough bonuses to a special move that the penalty for using it is rendered obsolete.The difference between your standard 'do damage' attack bonus and your 'apply affect' attack bonus is what counts. That's where the penalty lies. It doesn't matter if your base attack has gone up to +20 because you're fighting tougher opponents whose defenses have gone up to a similar value.It's the fact you have to take a -25% or -15% chance of succeeding that makes it a valid choice. Since when? The goal of this thread is how to keep the benefits of 4E combat, without keeping (what I and many others see as) the detriments of 4E combat.To rephrase; The goal of this thread is to keep the interesting elements (effects and movement) while removing the uninteresting elements (powers and AEDU samey-ness).The goal is to ensure that a variety of options are available to the players. Powers increase the frequency at which those varied options are used. Powers do not increase the availability of those varied options.That is; if I have an encounter power that lets me trip an opponent, it is in my best interest to use that power every encounter. Therefore you see 'trip attacks' happening with a great deal of frequency throughout a campaign.Instead, I want a system where trip attacks are always available, but I get to use my discretion about when they're appropriate. The thing that stops me doing it all of the time is the trade off, or penalty of trying to use it. If you can't ever get enough feats or magic bonuses to bypass the penalty, it remains a trade off. Something you do when you think it will pay off the most, rather than something you do because you've got encounter powers to burn up.The system I presented above does not require any tracking. It sets out a standard list of tricks that any character can use, at any time. Using them always has a trade off (penalty of some sort, regardless of whether it's not doing damage, or taking a penalty to your attack roll).How is that worse than having powers, which incidentally, you do have to track?Yes, in 4E you can point to page 42 and allow players to try a trip after they've used up all their trip powers. BUT most players won't think of that, because most players don't have the DMG, and have never read a forum about DND, and haven't been told about it by their DM. (And it brings forth the verisimilitude argument about 'why can't I just use the power twice?')Resources like page 42 only work if the players know that they exist.In my opinion basic attack actions should be the standard that you use for most of your attacks when the objective is to kill your opponent. Special actions should be what you use when the situation makes it worth attempting. The situation being appropriate is up to the individual player to decide. Not the rules.I want to see:"Is it worth trading in damage to knock my opponent over?""No, it wouldn't provide any real benefit right now.""Okay, I roll a standard attack"or"Is it worth trading in damage to knock my opponent over?""Yes, because it will disable him long enough and I can't kill him this round."or "Is it worth trading in damage to knock my opponent over?""Yes, because I don't need to kill him."Not"Hmm the battle's nearly over and I've still got that trip opponent power." "May as well use it."</blockquote>

Verification