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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6008638" data-attributes="member: 70709">You're dodging the issue.  Should we consider commonalities between class concepts as well as distinctions when making mechanics?  Would that mean that sometimes, at least, some shared mechanics might be appropriate?  My answer is yes, to both questions. Every class has martial abilities, but not every class is centered around those abilities.  That doesn't make it meaningless, it makes it shared.  Just like attack score, weapon proficiencies, ability scores, hit points, movement speed, 4e action points, healing surges etc.  These concepts aren't meaningless, they set up a coherent framework within which the game functions!  Why couldn't ED be likewise shared?  Just as classes utilize all those other commonalities, and many to different degrees and in different ways, we could do the same for ED.They do have some martial training, just as they have proficiencies and an attack bonus.  ED are unique in that they are a dynamic resource, which make them particularly suited for creating distinctions while maintaining interoperability.I agree with you that ED do not represent baseline fighting ability.  The natural state of pretty much any character would be to have 0 ED.  On the other hand, creatures are constantly exceeding their baseline fighting ability, and for some classes that is a primary focus.  Classes that do not concentrate on fighting ability would not have class features designed to give them ED, but even they can have their moments.  In fact, that is the role of almost any buff.  ED are already (i.e. in the playtest) an abstract extension to the static abilities granted by attack bonuses and proficiencies.If all characters can use ED your comparison fails because they would be using abilities they already have.  Arguing on the basis of this comparison that one should not have the Warlord grant ED directly assumes your conclusion, and is therefore invalid. (Moreover, if ED was a common feature of all martial interactions then granting ED directly would be less Matrix-like than any of your examples, because it would only grant the character the ability to do what a character already knows.  On the other hand, although taking actions is something all characters can do, taking extra actions is not and relies entirely on the Warlord giving them that capability.)All with 5e mechanics that are, so far as I know, presently non-existent except  perhaps internally at WotC.  I don't think the Paladin will end up how I suggested either, but that is not relevant to whether or not a reasonable Paladin could be implemented in such a fashion, nor relevant to an accounting of its qualities.An unnecessary complication to mechanics that don't yet exist, or only in prior editions?  Sorry, all the paladin concepts you listed are going to get mechanics with a new coat of paint at the very least, and I sure hope they're thinking beyond that.   Moreover, your objection to a skill check-based Paladin, namely that this mechanical distinction from the cleric is unnecessary due to the conceptual similarities of the classes, is ironic given your position on ED, where mechanical similarities devalue the conceptual distinctions between the classes.  Both positions have merit, but you are applying them quite selectively.So call my example "Paladin" something different if that helps.  Maybe a more martial re-envisioning of the 3e Truenamer, which had (terrible) skill-based casting.  Something like using truenames to discern and affect the properties of targets, including learning special points of weakness which one can exploit with an attuned weapon.  In any case, I was trying to show how ED could tie into a class that is largely weapon-based without making the whole class itself focused around ED.  Did I succeed, even partially, at that or not?Finally, in the example the ED do potentially add something besides additional rolling. Heck, they don't even have to be rolled. They potentially add flexibility within the class itself, interoperability with other classes (in play and through multiclassing), and from both a rich soil for emergent effects.My earlier example of a cleric spell that lets players of the same faith pass around ED seems to me to be something that would simply not be written without that kind of resource.  One might imagine a Paladin ability that lets them share their smite if desired, but no one would write a cleric spell that lets a paladin share their smite.  One might imagine such a spell as a paladin spell, but in that case the cleric probably won't be the one casting it.  Furthermore, such an ED-sharing spell has uses far beyond interacting with a single paladin class feature.  It enables an entirely new form of party cooperation.  Considered in isolation, vanilla smite using ED really doesn't offer any benefits, but it is also insufficient scope for judging.</blockquote>

Verification