Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6069680" data-attributes="member: 87792">Right on the nail.  And this is one of the many reasons I consider the process-sim approach as applied to fighters to seriously reduce the narrative space available to the point that fighters become a pale shadow of themselves.  I didn't realise I needed to step quite this far back into the very basics of what real world fighters are capable of.I have a broadsword in hand.  According to at least one school of historical fencing there are eight orthodx strokes I could open with (thrust, chop down through the head, and then on each side there's a strike to shoulder, side, and thigh).  My opponent has four basic responses I can think of; step out of the way, parry corps-a-corps, parry in high guard, and parry in hanging guard (that's without getting into the detail of which ring they parry in - whether they block close or far out). Then it's probably my opponent's turn to counter as my sword is extended and theirs is close to them and balanced; my sword is probably blocking three of their lines because of where it is (unless they step back, disengage, and counter.  We're up to 8*4*5 combinations already after the first exchange of blows and the first second.Expecting a game to go through in process-sim fashion all the possible results of six seconds worth of swordplay is simply, startlingly, staggeringly absurd.  And it doesn't matter for simple, static swordplay because there are really only two outcomes that matter.  Did you get hit and did your opponent get hit?   Unless we want to go into real world swordplay and have combat rounds that are a second or less  we need to go for outcome-based combat.However actual real world fighters are much more flexible than simply trading blows with each other.  I've given an orthodox Tide of Iron from Viking swordplay (the one involving leading with the edge of the shield to try to force the enemy back).  One using a legionary's shield would look more than a little different; the legionary shield was such a different shape that you used it in combat very differently.  (And I wouldn't try Tide of Iron with a kite shield except as part of a shieldwall).Which means that we have three choices offered if we are to take [MENTION=3601]BT[/MENTION]'s requested level of detail into account:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Cripple fighters so that even a legendary D&D fighter is incapable of carrying out orthodox real world techniques (there are a hell of a lot more powers that map to real world techniques than just Tide of Iron)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Long discussions about how to use weapons and armour dealing with how every single power might be used with different weapons and equipment from different ages and time periods, meaning that a flexible fighter class takes up more space than about four other classes in the book combined.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Assume that the players are the sort of imaginative people ready to roleplay and visualise things for themselves - and that they are sensible enough to pick powers that match what they think their characters can do.  (The effects based system used by 4e.)</li> </ol>I honestly didn't realise that anyone would need the level of detail [MENTION=3601]BT[/MENTION] is asking for spelled out in an RPG book.  I thought as roleplayers most of us prided ourselves on our imaginations and we didn't need everything spelled out for us.  "Visualise your character and then flesh it out using the rules" I thought was something that was screamingly obvious.  And that, [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], is why I'm asking you to pick a power other than CAGI to pick on; pre-errata CAGI (alongside its upgraded version) is literally the only fighter encounter power I am aware of that has the metagame properties you object to in its own right.  Choosing it as your continual refrain is like me coming back to fabricate and the D&D economy every five seconds.  It's repetative, it's tedious, and all it shows is that there exists a single power you don't like.  I might as well center my entire criticism of Pathfinder around the original Prone Shooter.  CAGI is a power that exists to replicate the common moment on screen where just about everyone tries to dogpile the warrior almost in defiance of sense.  This happens to the point of being cliche - if you want a game where things like that happen then why not use it?  If you don't, not using it is not even a houserule.  It's simply that this one power is incompatable with the tone of game you want to run.  You think that D&D should be laser-focussed onto a single tone?</blockquote>

Verification