Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5996861" data-attributes="member: 177">To this, I'll agree.To this, I disagree.  It cultivates the feel that, in melee, the Fighter is extremely capable of hurting you and surviving.  He is no more adaptable than anyone else.There should be no class that, in its way, isn't proficient at spontaneous reaction to the ever-changing landscape of battle.  If the character can't adapt in a fight, the character will DIE.  The sorcerer does it by being able to choose which spell it casts on the fly, and the wizard does it by having no real limit on the variety of spells known, but both have the same end - some flexibility.Even if I accept your posit on the feel, I disagree.  You realize that Willpower, Favors, and Expertise Dice are really all variations on spell points: you have some resource that you spend a point of it to make something happen.  So, we already have three classes using the vibe.  The cat is out of the bag.  Too late.No, they can respond to the flow of a fight - they have a big bag of maneuvers.  But they don't "master" the flow, they don't control the flow.  That would be the Warlord's shtick, I imagine.  I don't see a reason why the same mechanic cannot be used, if the results are sufficiently different.Here's the question this attitude raises: What is the point?If the point is to have a unique play experience, then I need 17 different mechanics, and I need to know them in order to choose which play experience I want.If the point is to play the archetype I want, then I don't need 17 different mechanics - having 17 mechanics is a barrier to entry, as every time I want to try a new archetype, I have to relearn my game!  In addition, even if a given mechanic fits two different archetypes well, one of them will probably have to settle for a worse implementation, as I'm "not allowed" to reuse mechanics, even if they work!These two lines are rather antithetical to each other.  And I'm sure there are folks for whom each is primary.  My guess, then, is that you won't see a complete solution for either.  There will be many unique mechanics, but not *everything* will be unique.  Especially because, as I noted, there's design you can do with shared mechanics that doesn't work with unique mechanics.I don't see it as a problem - no matter what you do, some combinations *will* be more effective than others, even with unique mechanics.  Given that we have to accept some of this, it makes sense to me to at least actively design where some of the optimal lines are, rather than have them be accidental, and build them so they're at least stylistically appropriate and interesting.</blockquote>

Verification