Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 5864797" data-attributes="member: 834">Lots of posts, did not read them all.  Surely someone suggested what I am about to;The premise is that if some attacks are more powerful than others, they need some restriction otherwise they just become the default attack.4e had an arbitray restrictions (daily, encounter), 5e should have more organic ones.Every attack that is more powerful than the baseline attack needs a costs. From past past editions, we've always hada higher risk of failure.  i.e. Good old penalty to hit or a required successful skill check otherwise the action is wasted.  The problem with this approach is from a mathematical point of view, a higher risk of failure can often be compared to the expected result and canny player end up spamming those with a good ratio and avoiding those with a bad one, irrelevant of the coolness factor of the move.It can be a 'vitality cost'.  This would work better, IMO.  If an attack costs you 5 hp each time you do it, you will pace yourself!It can be a drawback.  If you lose 2 to 4 points of defense every time you do it, you will pick your spot.It can be a nasty consequence.  A free attack from the target after your resolved your attack is nice.  If you did not put him down, pay the price!It should be things like that.  Thus, we would see a wider variety of maneuvers employed.</blockquote>