Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Composer99" data-source="post: 8968251" data-attributes="member: 7030042">Fighters (when they're a distinct martial profession/class/category) are, to my mind, masters of arms and armour, and of combat tactics and techniques. Ideally, player character fighters ought to have features that mechanically instantiate this concept or theme.As such, I'm of the mind that fighters ought to have tactical capabilities - &quot;powers&quot; or &quot;manoeuvres&quot; as it were - in proportion to the granularity or level of detail of the combat subsystem/minigame in a TTRPG.If the game doesn't treat combat as a separate minigame, or treats it as a general conflict minigame (such that the same rules apply to many other kinds of conflicts), then such tactical capabilities would be inappropriate. (In such games, combat either isn't an important part of gameplay, or is best handled using theatre of the mind, or is resolved entirely at a &quot;strategic&quot; layer, as it were.) A broad feature such as rerolling a combat-related die roll is sufficient.If combat is its own minigame but has a very simple, standardised procedure (such as B/X-OSE combat), I'd be comfortable giving fighters a very simple &quot;once per round you can deal a little extra damage to one enemy, or alternatively knock them prone or shove them back a short distance&quot; kind of effect, but not much more than that; something as straightforward as the fighter features in Worlds Without Number.In WotC-era D&amp;D, with its very detailed combat procedure, it's certainly more appropriate for fighters to have sets of &quot;manoeuvres&quot;, whether fighter-specific or better access to generally-available manoeuvres. Another game that springs to mind is Riddle of Steel or its spiritual successor, Blade of the Iron Throne. I don't own either game (thought I might spring for the latter), but I'm led to understand that they use manoeuvres, albeit in a very different mechanical context from D&amp;D.Anyway, all that is to say that how much detail should go into the GEAS Warrior depends on how detailed combat is in that game. The Warrior presented in the OP certainly seems suitable for something fairly granular.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Composer99, post: 8968251, member: 7030042"] Fighters (when they're a distinct martial profession/class/category) are, to my mind, masters of arms and armour, and of combat tactics and techniques. Ideally, player character fighters ought to have features that mechanically instantiate this concept or theme. As such, I'm of the mind that fighters ought to have [I]tactical[/I] capabilities - "powers" or "manoeuvres" as it were - in proportion to the granularity or level of detail of the combat subsystem/minigame in a TTRPG. If the game doesn't treat combat as a separate minigame, or treats it as a general conflict minigame (such that the same rules apply to many other kinds of conflicts), then such tactical capabilities would be inappropriate. (In such games, combat either isn't an important part of gameplay, or is best handled using theatre of the mind, or is resolved entirely at a "strategic" layer, as it were.) A broad feature such as rerolling a combat-related die roll is sufficient. If combat is its own minigame but has a very simple, standardised procedure (such as B/X-OSE combat), I'd be comfortable giving fighters a very simple "once per round you can deal a little extra damage to one enemy, or alternatively knock them prone or shove them back a short distance" kind of effect, but not much more than that; something as straightforward as the fighter features in Worlds Without Number. In WotC-era D&D, with its very detailed combat procedure, it's certainly more appropriate for fighters to have sets of "manoeuvres", whether fighter-specific or better access to generally-available manoeuvres. Another game that springs to mind is Riddle of Steel or its spiritual successor, Blade of the Iron Throne. I don't own either game (thought I might spring for the latter), but I'm led to understand that they use manoeuvres, albeit in a very different mechanical context from D&D. Anyway, all that is to say that how much detail should go into the GEAS Warrior depends on how detailed combat is in that game. The Warrior presented in the OP certainly seems suitable for something fairly granular. [/QUOTE]

Verification