Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6070978" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.&nbsp; I didn't read all 37+ pages...but I did scan a bit. I don't mean to derail the current discussion about the 4e tactical mini's rules stuff, but here's my quick 2¢.&nbsp; Fighters should simply fight better than anyone else. Yes, it is that simple. They should have their focus on fighting. The game as a whole should be *extremely BASIC* as, well, a base. All the extra stuff can be added as 'options' in sidebars and/or appendices. Anyway, if a fighter simply had the best &quot;to hit&quot; baseline, all these supposed &quot;maneuvers&quot; could just have a to-hit applied. Fighters would naturally be the most likely to succeed in pulling them off. For example, a tricky maneuver may call for a -8 to hit. If a 10th level fighter has +14 to hit with his chosen weapon, he still gets a +6 to hit when he tries that...whilst the 10th level thief, with his +6 to hit total has a -2 to hit if he tried it. Plain, simple, quick and easy.&nbsp; IMHO, trying to 'codify' special maneuvers, throwing them under &quot;fighter&quot;, and then just hand waiving any actual intelligent reasoning as to why a fighter can use/try Tide of Iron, but a cleric with a shield can't is silly. Don't even get me started on the whole &quot;encounter&quot; or &quot;daily&quot; stuff.&nbsp; So, yeah, simple. The current designers of 5e seem to be going farther and farther away from &quot;simple, base design&quot; so that anyone can play 5e, then add stuff they want to play any 'version' using 5e, just isn't happening now.They *should* be looking at what the game originally was, and then taking that as a base and re-creating it so that later &quot;add ins&quot; could be added without the need to actually change anything. For example: AC. Pre-3e D&amp;D had descending AC, post-3e had ascending AC. The older versions could be easily re-worked to have/use ascending AC without 'screwing up' the old stuff. However, if you add in &quot;feats&quot; as a core base for the game, then that pretty much screws anyone from easily playing a more 'basic' version of the game that doesn't want to play with Feats (or any &quot;choosable special abilities&quot;, so to speak), as originally there was nothing like 'feats' available. Ergo, &quot;feats&quot; should be an add-in, and not part of the core rule assumptions.&nbsp; Anyway, there you have it. Fighters should fight better than anyone else, and, thus have the best chance to pull off fancy combat maneuvers/tricks/whatever. That should be based on absolute basic skill, with no 'added on doo-dads' like Feats or Combat Maneuvers; it's a ROLE-PLAYING GAME...and not a computer or rigid-ruled board game.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6070978, member: 45197"] Hiya. I didn't read all 37+ pages...but I did scan a bit. I don't mean to derail the current discussion about the 4e tactical mini's rules stuff, but here's my quick 2¢. Fighters should simply fight better than anyone else. Yes, it is that simple. They should have their focus on fighting. The game as a whole should be *extremely BASIC* as, well, a base. All the extra stuff can be added as 'options' in sidebars and/or appendices. Anyway, if a fighter simply had the best "to hit" baseline, all these supposed "maneuvers" could just have a to-hit applied. Fighters would naturally be the most likely to succeed in pulling them off. For example, a tricky maneuver may call for a -8 to hit. If a 10th level fighter has +14 to hit with his chosen weapon, he still gets a +6 to hit when he tries that...whilst the 10th level thief, with his +6 to hit total has a -2 to hit if he tried it. Plain, simple, quick and easy. IMHO, trying to 'codify' special maneuvers, throwing them under "fighter", and then just hand waiving any actual intelligent reasoning as to why a fighter can use/try [i]Tide of Iron[/i], but a cleric with a shield can't is silly. Don't even get me started on the whole "encounter" or "daily" stuff. So, yeah, simple. The current designers of 5e seem to be going farther and farther away from "simple, base design" so that anyone can play 5e, then add stuff they want to play any 'version' using 5e, just isn't happening now.They *should* be looking at what the game originally was, and then taking that as a base and re-creating it so that later "add ins" could be added without the need to actually change anything. For example: AC. Pre-3e D&D had descending AC, post-3e had ascending AC. The older versions could be easily re-worked to have/use ascending AC without 'screwing up' the old stuff. However, if you add in "feats" as a core base for the game, then that pretty much screws anyone from easily playing a more 'basic' version of the game that doesn't want to play with Feats (or any "choosable special abilities", so to speak), as originally there was nothing like 'feats' available. Ergo, "feats" should be an add-in, and not part of the core rule assumptions. Anyway, there you have it. Fighters should fight better than anyone else, and, thus have the best chance to pull off fancy combat maneuvers/tricks/whatever. That should be based on absolute basic skill, with no 'added on doo-dads' like Feats or Combat Maneuvers; it's a ROLE-PLAYING GAME...and not a computer or rigid-ruled board game. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification