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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Markn" data-source="post: 6066739" data-attributes="member: 21827">I don't see how this subtracts flavor.  In fact, I think its the opposite.  Damage has a standard, but each weapon still has a property; still gives bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage; and the fact that it functionally will provide real differences to what a weapon can do only enhances flavor, IMHO.I think its silly because, to some degree, the game should support versimilitude.  A big two-handed warhammer (maybe I wasn't clear with the description the first time) or a big two-handed club does not make much sense to be paired with spring attack.  Maybe that's my perception but I don't think I would be alone in this thought.  On the flipside, if I was a player and the DM had a big lumbering creature (perhaps an ogre) use spring attack on me, I'd call lame.  It's not that I expect the rules to be the same for the monsters as I do for the PCs, its that I expect the versimilitude to be the same.  And I am certain that if WotC designed a monster with this combination, without any further explanation, the boards would be lit up with talk about how a lumbering two handed wielding creature shouldn't have spring attack.  Creatures have been altered by WotC in the past for lesser offences.  I suspected this component would be controversial.  I can understand you opinion on this.  Since a playtest is going on currently, I belive that WotC could find the right way for the community as a whole to get behind this more than 4e.I think there could be multiple methods.  It could simply be an attack roll against that particular stat.  Or it could still be an attack roll that compares against both AC and the stat.  The point is, damage is still done (or a fraction of what is normally done perhaps) but there is an additional effect on top of damage - such as advantage - which represents outsmarting/coercing the ogre and puting it into a bad position, hence the additional effect of the next attack against the ogre at advantage.  Its not much different than a skill check outside of combat to convince someone to do something.  And yes, that skill check could simply be done in combat, but there are two things that currently make this a less optimal choice.  First, the majority of players tend to feel that if there isn't a potential to damage the creature, then the action isn't worth doing in place of an attack.  Second, the damage plus effect supports the idea that the character is getting better over time since he could not do that at lower levels which is something most players would enjoy.Agreed.  This is walking a fine line, but since WotC is conducting an open playtest, now is the time to find out where the line is on this type of thinking.  In fact, I suspect we will see more and more 4e-isms enter the play test as it continues.  Some will be removed from fan backlash, others won't be, and others will be adjusted to suit fan taste and I think this could be an area where we see the latter..  The fact is, low level has very vew options.  "Fat axe to the head" is the common theme for low levels.  I'm not saying itst he only thing, but the most common.  Surely, new gamers, or casual gamers, gravitate to that style.  I'm not advocating removing ALL options at 1st level, I'm just suggesting that the options can be spread out more, or designed differently to further enhance options in later game play.  It's clear that EVERYONE has a different view of what high level play is - but most agree that high level should feel different than low level.  This is one idea on how to accomplish it and a decent idea, IMHO since this idea has no expecations on what the story will bring to the campaign - it doesn't matter if the characters rule domains or not, it doesn't matter if its a sea or land campaign, it doesn't matter if the characters are striving to become gods or not.  This idea ignores all the potential variations of what a campaign could be focused on, yet provides for a significant difference from the early part of play.At any rate, thanks for the feedback!</blockquote>

Verification