Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5985757" data-attributes="member: 17106">So your case is that in earlier versions of the game, characters had inappropriately restrictive abilities that have been made available to more and more players and characters over the editions, and we should go back to that? D&D has become less and less class-based over time, treating classes more as a convenient way of packaging abilities that helps people understand what they're getting but less and less as a choice that puts you in a box that you can't get out of.The 3e mentality was that you could make a character that fit that mold (single-class, standard race, typical feat and skill choices), but you didn't have to. As 3e has been revised and Pathfinderized, classes have gotten more and more flexible; how many classes don't have some kind of option to select evasion?. Not really looking for a backwards step here. Not really buying the appeal to tradition, and Gygax's name in and of itself doesn't carry much weight with me.The say-yes mentality suggests that if a player of any character says that and it seems possible, you shouldn't say no, you should roll something.I see what you're saying. I just don't think that either iterative attacks or those combo powers are all that "significant". Anyway, there are lots of feats in 3.X that let you attack and bull rush, attack and trip, move and full attack, etc. Those are not limited to a set number of uses, and are available to anyone who qualifies, which is a better way of getting to the same game effect (you can do more in a combat round than the base rules allow).I'm all for out of turn actions. Trailblazer does a wonderful job of expanding the attack of opportunity concept into a mechanic that covers blocking and dodging as well, but doesn't require anything like the power structure.Some people hate the complexity though.That's not really the issue. The issue is that a character is causing another character to move-this is generally considered a bull rush-without physically touching him. Why you're not in charge of your own movement, I don't get.***But, as D&D players know, those ability scores are not necessarily equal in value, so those characters are "unbalanced".Anyway, lets say you have four characters:1. Strong Guy: Smashes things2. Agile Guy: Stealthy and skilled3. Smart Guy: Reshapes the world4: Wise Guy: Heals peopleSo, either:A: None of them are special. They all have distinguishing characteristics.B: They are all special. One is a good fighter, the second is a good rogue, the third is a good wizard and the fourth is a good cleric.If you were to say B again, we could conclude that the classic D&D archetypes are all special (and thus, "balanced"), despite the fact that their abilities are, even in such abstract terms, not equal. A contentious point to some.</blockquote>

Verification