Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cmbarona" data-source="post: 6004340" data-attributes="member: 71281">First, please explain what you mean by parry being "the single ability currently usable with expertise dice."Second, I agree with your analysis of 3.X fighters and multiclassing. However, I either don't quite understand your argument about ED needing to be fighter-exclusive, or I don't agree with your conclusions. You seem to be assuming that I'm arguing that, even if Maneuvers such as Parry are available to other classes, that accessing that ability necessarily follow the rules of the Fighter's CS. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm suggesting is that other classes access ED, but how they access those dice, and which Maneuvers they can access, differs greatly from a Fighter. Perhaps a Paladin could use Parry, but not as often as the Fighter, or his means of accessing ED were much more limited (maybe an Encounter resource, I don't know). If it seems that everyone will want a couple of Fighter levels, or whatever, in multiclassing, then I think we've already got ahead of ourselves. Multiclassing is its own can of worms. It's important to set design goals of multiclassing at this point, but to look at that end as a way of addressing discrete class design and interaction now would be, I believe, an inversion of the ideal design process.Going back to shared vs. unique mechanics here... Again, with the proposal currently on the table (ED not Fighter-exclusive), I think a spell caster analogy is helpful. To quote you, I hope not out of context,"But if both of these are allowed to another class, and then presumably  on the same ground also many others will be, then we have a first problem related  to the fact that other classes can get more or less anything that the  Fighter can, while the opposite is not true. This is just plain unfair."Similar notions are found in the interaction between Wizard and Sorceror. There is some spell list overlap (in this thread, we are proposing Maneuver overlap), but also some spell list distinction (also being proposed in Maneuvers). There are, further, class ability distinctions; the Wizard has fewer distinct features (for now), but the Sorceror is clearly different, and the Wizard cannot access those features. I would argue that they are both viable classes, maybe needing some balance adjustments. Do you disagree? And what's further being proposed in this thread is that Fighters and, say, Rangers or Rogues, can stand some ED/Maneuver overlap while all remain distinct and viable. Do you disagree with that?</blockquote>

Verification