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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 8495178" data-attributes="member: 10196">On that second part...  kind of?  There's a fair bit in D&D that is abstracted (e.g. HP), but taking action isn't really one of them.  Even casters follow the pattern of "cast a spell, achieve the effect described in the spell."  There's some wiggle room, but even back when there were very few explicitly defined combat actions outside of the basic attack, in every group I played with, improvised actions were met with the question "what are you trying to do?" and then the criteria for success was set with that in mind.  The types of combat actions in WotC era D&D are essentially just that, but spelled out in advance so you don't have to negotiate with the DM over every little thing.On the first part, there's definitely room for broadening design space, but I think that effort needs to be taken to make sure that design space doesn't just become magic in its framework.  Like, I'm all for save or x effects for martial characters, but then if you start making those more powerful (which I'm fine with too) and broad in effect, you have to start thinking of balancing, and it's real easy to go from that to looking at how magic is balanced and replicating it, and then essentially you have spells in everything but description.  As an example of how one might keep martial ability design separate, one could say that instead of balancing based on use per day like spells, you could do it at will, but with diminishing returns on the logic that an enemy that sees you pull off a big move is more likely to find a way to avoid or counter it with each successive attempt.  Another balancing mechanic might be risk, where a failed attempt makes you vulnerable either in general, or to specific consequences specified in the ability.</blockquote>

Verification