Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Bad Axe Games Hosted Forum
Modifying the Trailblazer Fighter
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="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 5125192" data-attributes="member: 94"><p>Tanking, huh? </p><p></p><p>By which I assume you mean, "Taking and holding aggro." </p><p></p><p>Bleh.</p><p></p><p>I am not a big fan of 4e's various ways of forcing the DM's hand.</p><p></p><p>It's one thing to say, "If you do this, then I get to do this." Most AoO's fall into that category. But it at least preserves DM choice.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, there's, "If you <strong><em>don't</em></strong> do this, then I get to do this." </p><p></p><p>Seems subtle, but it's not. It has a completely different (and way too Gamist) vibe. </p><p></p><p>Ultimately, this situation doesn't really change the "business end" of the fighter at all. You're ostensibly giving him "controlling" abilities-- or at least the ability to discourage certain actions from the DM-- but the "business end" of your function is still this: The fighter gets to do more damage. </p><p></p><p>He's still a hammer, and all problems are still nails. You haven't really altered his function.</p><p></p><p>Those objections out of the way...</p><p></p><p>It looks like you're at least on the right track, looking for ways to make Punishing Strike pay off. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I certainly wouldn't remove Expert Weapon Proficiency. Your solution should integrate with the existing mechanics, not replace them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See above on my philosophical objection to this. </p><p></p><p>I also suspect this will slow down play at the table.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My preferred solution would just be to allow certain Combat Maneuvers as an AoO-- disarm, trip, grapple, and sunder would all work.</p><p></p><p>But it's very powerful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe you need to explain more fully what "tank" means to you. What function, <em>specifically</em>, does the fighter need to perform that he can't perform now?</p><p></p><p>In my experience, a fighter draws plenty of "aggro" simply by dishing out a lot of damage and making himself too dangerous to ignore.</p><p></p><p>Keep in mind, computer games (like WoW) <strong><em>need </em></strong>mechanics like aggro and tanking because they don't have human intelligence and must rely on AI to make tactical decisions. </p><p></p><p>I don't really know what's gained by taking an AI that was designed to emulate human decision making (poorly, at that) and then, once that AI flowchart is in place, go back and try to force human intelligence to abide by it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then fighters will hit with it less often.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 5125192, member: 94"] Tanking, huh? By which I assume you mean, "Taking and holding aggro." Bleh. I am not a big fan of 4e's various ways of forcing the DM's hand. It's one thing to say, "If you do this, then I get to do this." Most AoO's fall into that category. But it at least preserves DM choice. On the other hand, there's, "If you [B][I]don't[/I][/B] do this, then I get to do this." Seems subtle, but it's not. It has a completely different (and way too Gamist) vibe. Ultimately, this situation doesn't really change the "business end" of the fighter at all. You're ostensibly giving him "controlling" abilities-- or at least the ability to discourage certain actions from the DM-- but the "business end" of your function is still this: The fighter gets to do more damage. He's still a hammer, and all problems are still nails. You haven't really altered his function. Those objections out of the way... It looks like you're at least on the right track, looking for ways to make Punishing Strike pay off. I certainly wouldn't remove Expert Weapon Proficiency. Your solution should integrate with the existing mechanics, not replace them. See above on my philosophical objection to this. I also suspect this will slow down play at the table. My preferred solution would just be to allow certain Combat Maneuvers as an AoO-- disarm, trip, grapple, and sunder would all work. But it's very powerful. Maybe you need to explain more fully what "tank" means to you. What function, [I]specifically[/I], does the fighter need to perform that he can't perform now? In my experience, a fighter draws plenty of "aggro" simply by dishing out a lot of damage and making himself too dangerous to ignore. Keep in mind, computer games (like WoW) [B][I]need [/I][/B]mechanics like aggro and tanking because they don't have human intelligence and must rely on AI to make tactical decisions. I don't really know what's gained by taking an AI that was designed to emulate human decision making (poorly, at that) and then, once that AI flowchart is in place, go back and try to force human intelligence to abide by it. Then fighters will hit with it less often. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Bad Axe Games Hosted Forum
Modifying the Trailblazer Fighter
Top