NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5866567" data-attributes="member: 52073">Addressing the response to the rogue vs. goblins example from a page or so back, since I haven't been able to get to it until now:You're assuming 1 attack and no ability to chase; a 3e rogue could have TWF to trip the two closer goblins and then charge after the third after it runs away (the goblin opens the door and moves 30 feet, and the rogue runs 120 feet past him; if the goblin tries to run past, the rogue can charge and trip).  Yes, if you have exactly 1 attack and are on a featureless plain some combat maneuvers are less worthwhile...but then, featureless plains are fairly rare whether you're in dungeons or outside them.And the above example brings up another advantage of an a la carte maneuver system: you can use them on attacks.  If you have 3 attacks per round, you can attack/attack/attack normally, or you can attack/trip/attack, or disarm/trip/attack, or any other combination.  Meanwhile, powers are atomic, so you can't combine them like that unless a power is specifically made to modify other powers.No one is claiming that martial characters should be spamming the same thing over and over.  What people want in a general maneuver system that a power system doesn't have is combinatorics, as mentioned above.  You should not have a Trip That Guy power in your system, because tripping a guy is something you should just be able to do--whether or not it is reliable or worth it in a particular situation is another story.  You should have either a Be Better At Tripping Guys power (which makes the base maneuver better) or a Trip That Guy Differently power (which alters the way the maneuver is used, such as making it an AoE or a reaction).Only things that legitimately should be rare would be good power candidates.  Pushing a guy 20 squares is a power; pushing a guy 3-5 is not.  Tripping something 4 sizes larger than you is a power; tripping something your size is not.  Slamming someone into a wall and breaking their back is a power; slamming someone into a wall and doing some damage is not.  One of those options in each case is a dramatic power-up, a scene-defining ability, and/or a powerful option to be used sparingly; one is a basic tactic that should be usable as the situation warrants.You know, I hate page 42.  I really hate page 42.  The general concept is good, telling the DM what appropriate math is for various things at various levels, but the execution is terrible.  Rant spoilered for length:[sblock]First off, the numbers provided are weaker than powers.  The rationale given is that you don't want to make situational abilities better than powers, but (A) situational abilities should be better than powers, just like dailies should be better than encounters, otherwise there's no point in using the brazier or the acid pit or the spiky wall or whatever in place of your powers and (B) it reinforces the message that using powers is better than improvising.Second off, "have the DM make it up" is not a system, it's a suggestion.  You can't codify every last bit of math and write up pages and pages and pages and pages of powers and then say "Oh, the DM can wing that stuff."  Either the DM can make up everything, in which case you don't need powers, or you should provide rules for everything so you don't have such a stark disparity between powers and "everything else."Third, having rules is essential for combat creativity.  As Hussar said, players should be able to choose when to be awesome, not just hope that the DM won't put too many checks in their way to make them fail.  If you have rules for tripping, jumping, shoving, chandelier-swinging, etc., a player knows what his chances of success are.  If you have to play Mother May I with the DM, you're better off not bothering.  Many people have praised powers for codifying rules and empowering players, for letting you do something, period, instead of having the DM ask you for 5 different checks when you try something out of the ordinary.  Precisely the same problem occurs here: lack of codification is the enemy of creativity, because players can't accurately judge risk and reward and because choosing between reliable powers and unreliable DM fiat is a no-brainer.Fourth, any rules are better than no rules.  How well would combat work if the books gave no rules for difficult terrain and AoOs, instead saying "If a player moves into difficult terrain, assess appropriate penalties according to these guidelines" and "If a player does something that would probably be distracting, give their enemies AoOs"?  It would be clunky as heck and wouldn't work well.  If you have rules, DMs can use them, ignore them, or modify them as they see fit, other rules can reference them for enhancement or modification, and players are empowered; even bad rules provide a starting point for houserules.  If you don't have any rules, their quality will vary proportionally to the DM's, and they live in a vacuum because no other rules can say how often or how well they'll be used.  It is well within a DM's right to change the rules, and he should make rulings when needed, but he should not be required to continually come up with rulings on the fly for common situations when rules can be given instead.Finally, page 42 is a cop-out.  When people start talking about the various minutiae that the rules don't cover in enough detail, it is guaranteed that someone will say "Oh, just use page 42!" or "Just grab the numbers from page 42 and wing the rest!" or "You don't need rules; guidelines like page 42 are fine!"  No, guidelines are not fine; D&D hasn't been codifying more and more rules with every single edition for kicks and giggles.  Guidelines should be reserved for things like monster frequency, encounter composition, and other things that will vary by party, setting, and campaign theme; basic gameworld laws of physics like "How do I knock something over?" should have concrete answers.[/sblock]TL;DR for this post: If you're going to standardize powers, you should standardize maneuvers instead of relying on rough guidelines; not everything should be a power, only legitimately special things; leaving holes in the rules for DM fiat to fill is bad.</blockquote>

Verification