Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6050476" data-attributes="member: 1465">I strongly disagree for a variety of reasons.1) I do not understand why would you like a simpler fighter, and then suggest that every class (including the fighter) is complicated with your point-based system.There are classes in the game (basically all spellcasters) that by nature are complex enough to play even if you don't give them anything more than their basic vancian (or similar) spellcasting. Personally I don't want them to be by default more complicated than that (but I'm totally ok if a player has options for more complexity) so that even my casual players can play a Wizard just because they think the idea is cool.Fighter has always been the simplest class, exactly because of lack of a unique mechanic. But ED allowed the non-casual players to play a single-class Fighter in a more complex way; the beauty of ED was that the casual player who really wants to keep it as simple as possible, could just default to Deadly Strike every round (no slow down, they just know they roll 2 damage dice instead of one) and losing only in terms of tactical flexibility but not in terms of effectiveness.These (and making the Fighter more unique) are the reasons why I like ED as a Fighter-unique mechanic, but I don't want it to be given to other classes.2) The argument about feats must be put in the right perspective. What is really important is that narratively there is nothing that a character couldn't do because there's a Fighter-only option for it. I mean, just because there's an ED ability called "parry" doesn't mean that the other characters cannot parry, it only means that they cannot use that specific mechanic called "parry".If they really want the specific mechanic, there is always multiclassing.EDIT: Where I totally agree with you is that if you make such system available across all classes, then it actually becomes a nice optional layer of complexity. That would be totally fine, and I think your point-based system itself is interesting (thus I disagree with your premises, but I think your proposal itself will probably work nicely).</blockquote>

Verification