Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 4286163" data-attributes="member: 9391">Well, the character's don't do anything: they only exist as fictional constructs, so that makes it pretty hard to take independent action. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The players make the tactical decisions; these are represented as tactical decisions the characters make on the battlefield. It's not a one to one mapping between those two.I dunno, I don't find it hard to imagine how to map one to the other using the &quot;proper opportunity&quot; explanation discussed above. The character's doing their best to win the fight at all times, but the player gets to decide when circumstances coincide to get a really decisive hit in, and the effect of that decisive attack is really good, in fact it's the effect listed for an encounter or daily power usage. There's lots of successful attacks that aren't decisive in that fashion.Maybe one issue folks have is that this kind of approach gives the player more authorial power than just &quot;My guy does X&quot;? Maybe some folks don't want to have the authority to have a say in what other things are going on in the fight outside of their own character. I kind of like it; it gives sort of a stunting flavor to power usage. After all, using a Daily is both a tactical decision and a chance to shine the spotlight on your character.Another stumbling block is that it's so different in flavor from magic. You could use this kind of rationale for magic as well, but we're all used to D&amp;D being about prepared spells rather than impromptu effects, not to mention the Wizard is written in a way that isn't particularly compatible with it. But there's no reason that martial and magical classes have to describe things along the same lines.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SweeneyTodd, post: 4286163, member: 9391"] Well, the character's don't do anything: they only exist as fictional constructs, so that makes it pretty hard to take independent action. :) The players make the tactical decisions; these are represented as tactical decisions the characters make on the battlefield. It's not a one to one mapping between those two. I dunno, I don't find it hard to imagine how to map one to the other using the "proper opportunity" explanation discussed above. The character's doing their best to win the fight at all times, but the player gets to decide when circumstances coincide to get a really decisive hit in, and the effect of that decisive attack is really good, in fact it's the effect listed for an encounter or daily power usage. There's lots of successful attacks that aren't decisive in that fashion. Maybe one issue folks have is that this kind of approach gives the player more authorial power than just "My guy does X"? Maybe some folks don't want to have the authority to have a say in what other things are going on in the fight outside of their own character. I kind of like it; it gives sort of a stunting flavor to power usage. After all, using a Daily is both a tactical decision and a chance to shine the spotlight on your character. Another stumbling block is that it's so different in flavor from magic. You could use this kind of rationale for magic as well, but we're all used to D&D being about prepared spells rather than impromptu effects, not to mention the Wizard is written in a way that isn't particularly compatible with it. But there's no reason that martial and magical classes have to describe things along the same lines. [/QUOTE]

Verification