Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7087581" data-attributes="member: 996">Because DoaM didn't go over well.&nbsp;Probably because GWF has higher base damage.&nbsp;Simpler?Reactions are rather limited, yes.It's a flat bonus like Dueling &amp; Archery.&nbsp;Variety.&nbsp; Mechanical distinctiveness.&nbsp; 5e does a lot of that, differentiates things not so much by what they are, what they do or how well they do it, but by the mechanics they use to do it.&nbsp; Afterall, the mechanics are what we directly experience, a different mechanic feels different, even if it doesn't give particularly different results, it evokes that the fiction it's modeling so indifferently is different......or something like that.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;I think combat styles could use some more options that build upon them.&nbsp; Feats or maneuvers or somesuch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7087581, member: 996"] Because DoaM didn't go over well. Probably because GWF has higher base damage. Simpler? Reactions are rather limited, yes. It's a flat bonus like Dueling & Archery. Variety. Mechanical distinctiveness. 5e does a lot of that, differentiates things not so much by what they are, what they do or how well they do it, but by the mechanics they use to do it. Afterall, the mechanics are what we directly experience, a different mechanic feels different, even if it doesn't give particularly different results, it evokes that the fiction it's modeling so indifferently is different... ...or something like that. ;) I think combat styles could use some more options that build upon them. Feats or maneuvers or somesuch. [/QUOTE]

Verification