Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 5948466" data-attributes="member: 710">I am strictly against the Cyberpunkisation of D&amp;D and are those opposed to the idea... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />---Well, actually I think Combat Advantage on Initiative is not that great. Even with a small attack bonus extra. I believe one of the reasons for the fighter to have Surges is so that there is more decision-making to playing him then just deciding who to attack. Because that's all to do when you don't have powers. Surges give you a &quot;resource&quot; to manage and make decisions about - is this the fight where an extra action would be used well? It's not simply about giving out bonuses so the Fighter is the better Fighter. It's about giving the Fighter playing some meaningful resources to make decisions about. It's to break the &quot;I attack&quot; monotony.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 5948466, member: 710"] I am strictly against the Cyberpunkisation of D&D and are those opposed to the idea... :p --- Well, actually I think Combat Advantage on Initiative is not that great. Even with a small attack bonus extra. I believe one of the reasons for the fighter to have Surges is so that there is more decision-making to playing him then just deciding who to attack. Because that's all to do when you don't have powers. Surges give you a "resource" to manage and make decisions about - is this the fight where an extra action would be used well? It's not simply about giving out bonuses so the Fighter is the better Fighter. It's about giving the Fighter playing some meaningful resources to make decisions about. It's to break the "I attack" monotony. [/QUOTE]

Verification