Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vikingkingq" data-source="post: 6009308" data-attributes="member: 66208">Everyone can use weapon attacks, but not everyone has them as class mechanisms. Again, I ask, what is the purpose of creating a spendable resource for increasing or reducing damage from weapon attacks? Why should that connection exist, when other universal connections don't (not every class can cast spells)? For most non-martial classes, this just adds a layer of  complexity to something they don't want to be doing most of the time, and an additional difficulty of re-balancing classes whose math originally took into account the Fighter being uniquely able to use ED to raise and lower damage. The Fighter had a unique interaction with the feat system in 3.X - they had more feats than other classes, and a couple fighter-only feats. Didn't make the class feel more unique to play, especially in comparison to classes that could cast spells or change into animals and also had feats. Here we have a Fighter that uses ED to raise and lower damage and carry out maneuvers as it's claim to uniqueness as a class; you're suggesting here to make half of this ubiquitous and you've suggested elsewhere giving plenty of maneuvers to other classes. Now all classes have ED and use them to raise and lower damage and carry out maneuvers, and we're back to square one. Wrong. The Fighter can now do more of what everyone else can do. We've been here before.  The key thing is what can ED do for the Rogue that no other system could otherwise do. Let's take your examples: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Using ED to escape combat, perform acrobatic stunts, set up elaborate multi-round feints, etc. rather than engage (something sneak attack absolutely requires)." Rogue Schemes already offer this functionality - the Thief Scheme makes it easier for Rogues to hide, and allows Rogues to "hit and run" after their Sneak Attack; the Thug can drop an enemy's speed to zero, making it easier to get away. It's not that hard to figure out how you could make a Dashing Scoundrel Scheme that handles stunts, feints, and the like. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Adding ED dice to initiative checks and to create lingering effects. The Thug Scheme already allows Rogues to avoid being surprised, and to create effects that last until the end of their next turn.  Again, it's not hard to figure out how to make an Assassin Rogue Scheme that focuses on poison effects, or a higher level Rogue Scheme benefit that allows the Rogue to apply Knack or Skill Mastery to Initiative rolls.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Using ED dice to modify Sneak Attacks. The Thug Scheme allows the Rogue to access Sneak Attacks through flanking, and to add zero-movement effects to Sneak Attacks; the Thief Scheme allows the Rogue to fire off the equivalent of a Fighter's Shift ever time they hit on a Sneak Attack. All without the need for ED. </li> </ul>The reason why I think the Warlord is possibly a good place for ED to work is because the Warlord has spent their careers training for war in the same way the Fighter has, on the same parade grounds and muster fields. The difference is that the Warlord has trained to be an officer of Fighters, directing them to use their skills in the most efficient ways against the right target at the right time, and inspiring them to push themselves beyond their limits. Here, ED actually does what you want it to do - it expresses a commonality between the two classes born on the battlefield. That's a commonality that doesn't exist between the Fighter and the Rogue (the Rogue avoids battlefield combat at all costs because they're not very hardy and armor gets in the way), the Barbarian (the Barbarian hasn't undergone formal military training and relies instead on psychological frenzy and raw natural ability), the Ranger (who hasn't either, and who relies on the environment and guerrilla tactics), and the Paladin (who's spent much of his time learning to channel the divine to do things the Fighter can't and who therefore has less need of a Fighter's potentially dishonorable tricks). However, it's not the only option - the Warlord could be an aura-based or aura-twisting class, or any number of other mechanics that could potentially better express the class' concept better than ED. And that's the point, the mechanic should exemplify the class' concept without treading on the other classes' concepts as much as possible - that's why the devs are putting work into making the Paladin mechanically and conceptually differently from the War Cleric, and the Ranger likewise from the Archer Fighter. What you're advocating does the opposite - it makes the classes more mechanically similar and blurs the lines between concepts. The concepts are supposed to determine the mechanics, because the mechanics are supposed to represent and express the concepts. If they aren't doing that - strip them out. There's a reason why we don't have a 100% Vancian Fighter; it's not a mechanic that represents and expresses the concept of a Fighter as a skilled combatant who is constantly adjusting tactics to new circumstances and opportunities. Not really. So now Smite Enemy keys off a dice pool that can be siphoned off for other purposes - except that the extra damage ability is redundant if you can just Smite your enemies and the reducing damage ability runs contrary to the character concept of a self-sacrificing and fearless warrior who takes on pain and suffering gladly. And the payoff is now the Paladin can copy the Fighter in carrying out martial maneuvers by acting less often like a Paladin. This mechanic is getting in the way of the class expressing its core concept. Again, the class design goals, and the associated polling they did, point to what the concept should be - Paladins are warriors who smite, lay on hands, cast divine spells, have divine protections from effects, and maybe have mounts.</blockquote>

Verification