Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7827396" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That is not the argument.The argument is this:- If Fighters can do thing x, then it stands to reason that they can do thing y and thing z.- If they can do thing y and thing z, then it stands to reason that they can do thing a and thing b.- If they can do thing a and thing b, then it stands to reason that they can do thing c and thing d.- If Fighters can do things y, z, a, b, c, and d, the game would scale more desirably from mid levels onward and play more desirably at endgame (both in the experience of GMing games and in playing them).But that is beside the point of this thread. What [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] is interested in (whether martial characters can do all of the above or only thing x) is how do we design martial characters and resolution mechanics that simultaneously yield a robust decision tree and the sort of enjoyable tactical/strategic overhead that he is looking for (in and out of combat)?</blockquote>