Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5651824" data-attributes="member: 61155"><p>That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier <em>to use </em>and simpler <em>to use </em>for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character. </p><p> </p><p>Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage. </p><p> </p><p>That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game. </p><p> </p><p>You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding <em>the entire system</em> from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better <em>experience</em>. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design. </p><p> </p><p>Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character.</p><p> </p><p>I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You are misreading what I am saying. A Slayer playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Slayer. A Knight playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Knight. A Weaponmaster playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Weaponmaster. A Barbarian playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Barbarian. </p><p> </p><p>If a Slayer only stays in one stance and makes basics every round, and uses Power Strike each round until he runs out, he remains an effective character. A Weaponmaster who never uses his encounter powers? Is going to be severely hindered. And certainly won't compare favorably to an average Knight, even one played as simply as possible. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>... a single attack is all most Essentials characters get. It's called a basic attack. I assume what you are actually saying that in order to be effective, they need to actively be switching stances and using tricks and other abilities appropriate to the situation. </p><p> </p><p>And... I think you are wrong. </p><p> </p><p>Look at the Slayer options for stances. Look how simple some of them are. A few bonus points of damage, a +1 bonus to attack. If a Slayer chooses one of those, and sticks with it all day long, in what way is he not being effective?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5651824, member: 61155"] That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier [I]to use [/I]and simpler [I]to use [/I]for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach. It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character. Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage. That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it. That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game. You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me. No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender. Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding [I]the entire system[/I] from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better [I]experience[/I]. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over. We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves. But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design. Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks. Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character. I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight. You are misreading what I am saying. A Slayer playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Slayer. A Knight playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Knight. A Weaponmaster playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Weaponmaster. A Barbarian playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Barbarian. If a Slayer only stays in one stance and makes basics every round, and uses Power Strike each round until he runs out, he remains an effective character. A Weaponmaster who never uses his encounter powers? Is going to be severely hindered. And certainly won't compare favorably to an average Knight, even one played as simply as possible. ... a single attack is all most Essentials characters get. It's called a basic attack. I assume what you are actually saying that in order to be effective, they need to actively be switching stances and using tricks and other abilities appropriate to the situation. And... I think you are wrong. Look at the Slayer options for stances. Look how simple some of them are. A few bonus points of damage, a +1 bonus to attack. If a Slayer chooses one of those, and sticks with it all day long, in what way is he not being effective? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?
Top