Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5996863" data-attributes="member: 54877">If you have bad coupling, the above is true. That's what makes a mechanic embedded--having bad coupling in how the mechanic attaches to the thing (class in this case).&nbsp;If you have good coupling, not only is the above false, but counter-intuitively, using the mechanic in multiple places actually makes it easier to manage.&nbsp; If you attach a mechanic to one class, you don't really know how hard it is to swap out, because you haven't tried. It's the second class that is the hardest task for coupling, and then diminishing from there.&nbsp; The more you work at making it swap well, the cleaner the coupling gets.&nbsp;You can go too far the other way.&nbsp; Saying that CS should be some universal mechanic that any class can take, willy-nilly, leads you to all the same problems that feats have.&nbsp; That is, you don't want to compromise the good coupling by trying to give the wizard CS quarterstaff tricks.&nbsp; My hunch is that if something was ever a fighter subclass (ranger, barbarian, etc.) then it should be considered for some lesser CS (or at least expertise) love. I'd like to see &quot;Rage&quot; mechanically geared as expertise dice, as the barbarian analog to CS.&nbsp; If a class is clearly not related to the fighter (rogue, cleric, wizard, etc.) then strongly consider excluding them from any expertise dice.&nbsp; Paladin is a strange beast in the middle that could go either way, depending upon what else you gave it.&nbsp;I don't know what it is with this push in D&amp;D that everything has to be unique or available to everyone, as if there was no middle ground.&nbsp; Classes cover a range of abilities, dividing the roles, niches, and responsibilities of the various D&amp;D genres among them.&nbsp; There is overlap, and there is distinction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5996863, member: 54877"] If you have bad coupling, the above is true. That's what makes a mechanic embedded--having bad coupling in how the mechanic attaches to the thing (class in this case). If you have good coupling, not only is the above false, but counter-intuitively, using the mechanic in multiple places actually makes it easier to manage. If you attach a mechanic to one class, you don't really know how hard it is to swap out, because you haven't tried. It's the second class that is the hardest task for coupling, and then diminishing from there. The more you work at making it swap well, the cleaner the coupling gets. You can go too far the other way. Saying that CS should be some universal mechanic that any class can take, willy-nilly, leads you to all the same problems that feats have. That is, you don't want to compromise the good coupling by trying to give the wizard CS quarterstaff tricks. My hunch is that if something was ever a fighter subclass (ranger, barbarian, etc.) then it should be [B]considered[/B] for some lesser CS (or at least expertise) love. I'd like to see "Rage" mechanically geared as expertise dice, as the barbarian analog to CS. If a class is clearly not related to the fighter (rogue, cleric, wizard, etc.) then strongly consider excluding them from any expertise dice. Paladin is a strange beast in the middle that could go either way, depending upon what else you gave it. I don't know what it is with this push in D&D that everything has to be unique or available to everyone, as if there was no middle ground. Classes cover a range of abilities, dividing the roles, niches, and responsibilities of the various D&D genres among them. There is overlap, and there is distinction. [/QUOTE]

Verification