Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5264891" data-attributes="member: 4720">I quite like this in some ways.&nbsp; You get your &quot;power&quot; from moving around, rather than the attack itself.&nbsp; Mechanical encouragement and justification for being a nimble, tricksy guy in combat.&nbsp; Good flavor, tasty idea.&nbsp; But it's not actually simpler in the strict sense of that word.&nbsp; That seems to be the majority opinion, but moving complexity around does not equal removing complexity.&nbsp; In short, I'm really not sure how having move powers (and more of them) instead of attack powers makes the thief &quot;simpler&quot; than the rogue.&nbsp; In fact, in some ways, this is a bit more opaque.&nbsp; For one thing, you are again making additional decisions, this time both after and before the attack roll, about whether to apply additional mojo to the hit.&nbsp; But more importantly, I'm not sure how intuitive to the naive player it is to relocate more of the capacity for CA generation and bonus damage onto move actions.&nbsp; I think it's a great idea that encourages a mobile character.&nbsp; That really fits my idea of how rogues should fight, but I'm not sure how that will be clearer to a novice than the way it currently works with powers.EDIT:I hate that I feel the need to make this clarification, but with all the vitriol about this, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight or razz Essentials.&nbsp; I'm honestly confused about how this is simpler, in the net.&nbsp; Sure, attacks are simpler, ignoring the additional decision points on Backstab and Power Strike (so I guess it's simple the way physics is simple in a frictionless, gravity-less vacuum), but all the complexity seems to have been simply off-loaded to other parts of your turn.&nbsp; Which, again, I like.&nbsp; Your movement is more holistically part of your combat action.&nbsp; This is very cool to me.&nbsp; But I don't see it as simple.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 5264891, member: 4720"] I quite like this in some ways. You get your "power" from moving around, rather than the attack itself. Mechanical encouragement and justification for being a nimble, tricksy guy in combat. Good flavor, tasty idea. But it's not actually simpler in the strict sense of that word. That seems to be the majority opinion, but moving complexity around [B]does not equal[/B] removing complexity. In short, I'm really not sure how having move powers (and more of them) instead of attack powers makes the thief "simpler" than the rogue. In fact, in some ways, this is a bit more opaque. For one thing, you are again making additional decisions, this time both after [i]and[/i] before the attack roll, about whether to apply additional mojo to the hit. But more importantly, I'm not sure how intuitive to the naive player it is to relocate more of the capacity for CA generation and bonus damage onto move actions. I think it's a great idea that encourages a mobile character. That really fits my idea of how rogues should fight, but I'm not sure how that will be clearer to a novice than the way it currently works with powers. EDIT: I hate that I feel the need to make this clarification, but with all the vitriol about this, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight or razz Essentials. I'm honestly confused about how this is simpler, in the net. Sure, attacks are simpler, ignoring the additional decision points on Backstab and Power Strike (so I guess it's simple the way physics is simple in a frictionless, gravity-less vacuum), but all the complexity seems to have been simply off-loaded to other parts of your turn. Which, again, I like. Your movement is more holistically part of your combat action. This is [B]very[/B] cool to me. But I don't see it as simple. [/QUOTE]

Verification