I like the idea of the mechanic but I would prefer the extra dice be based on the weapon being used like 4e's [W] mechanic.
I like the idea of the mechanic but I would prefer the extra dice be based on the weapon being used like 4e's [W] mechanic.
Reinforces my idea that game design is 80% psychology.![]()
Mengu said:The dice pool is simply an arbitrary game mechanic that could be flavored as force points, arcane focus, primal fury, martial cunning, or whatever else you want to flavor it as.
It's a good mechanic, I like it, I hope they use it, but it doesn't scream "Fighter" to me. I just see it as a generic mechanic that could enhance game play for any character.
The problem with basing it on weapon is that it leads to weapons having an even more advantage mechanically. That seems to end up with everyone using a certain weapon so as not to be at a larger mechanical disadvantage. By leaving it tied to the fighter class, they can choose a weapon that fits their character at less chance of that choice being a significant disadvantage.
The problem with basing it on weapon is that it leads to weapons having an even more advantage mechanically. That seems to end up with everyone using a certain weapon so as not to be at a larger mechanical disadvantage. By leaving it tied to the fighter class, they can choose a weapon that fits their character at less chance of that choice being a significant disadvantage.
While I'm a big fan of 4e's [W] mechanic, wouldn't that make high damage weapons way too powerful? Making the greatsword super accurate and pretty much work as shield?
I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.
What in my post implies great swords would be super accurate and work as shields?
I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.
Yes, but the die pool that's being discussed isn't just extra damage; it's bonus dice that you can choose to add to a variety of things, like To Hit, AC, or damage.
Context of the thread's discussion and the mechanic being put forth in the article. If the die size was based on weapon damage, that meant you could add a d10 to your AC if you so choose.
If 4e's [W] mechanic (or a variation thereof) pops up in 5e, the previously discussed (but still unseen) combat maneuver system would probably be a better fit.
Definitely. That is done by using 1d4's for the dagger and 1d12's for Great Axes and 2d6's for Great Swords. Plus potentially an additional strength modifier when wielding two-handed weapons.
I want larger wepons to have an advantage over small ones. A great sword should have a significant damage advantage over a longsword since a longsword allows the use of a shield.
Sounds fairly similar to DCC
Functionally, the change seems to be this:
- Take your fighter's bonus to damage.
- Convert it into dice that you roll.
- Give fighters some options to trade damage for other things.
Functionally, it's the same as something like an expanded Expertise. You trade one thing for another.
To me it sounds like Force Points from Star Wars.
"I have a point that can get me extra dice for certain use," has been around quite a while.
Harlekin said:Mike's article suggests that The CS dice will actually be usable for a wider range of more interesting things, such as counterattacks and acrobatic maneuvers. Moreover, you may be able to use them in reaction to your opponent, which again makes them more interesting than moving AB to DB or mathing around with power attack on your own turn. It looks to me that much of the positive reaction is to this potential of the CS rules.
Actually, I'm articulating the philosophy that became more and more prevalent throughout 3e (with alt class features/substitution levels/Unearthed Arcana/feats that give you class abilities and spells/etc.), became even more prevalent in PF (with archetypes), and pervades in many of the offshoots and retroclones. More and more, choosing a class has become less of a metagame choice (I want to be smart and have Vancian superpowers, so I play a wizard) and more of an in-game choice (I want to be smart and have superpowers, which may be Vancian/spell point/recharge/etc., so I play a wizard). Design-your-own-class is the philosophy that powered PF's Advanced Player's Guide and helped it take over the market.Well, I suspect you are in a very small minority in this case.
The people who wanted every character to possibly be able to access anything usually moved on from D&D to other game systems that were built for this... GURPS, Hero/Champions, and the like. The one attempt to do it in D&D (2E's Player's Option: Skills & Powers) died on the vine.