Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3734857" data-attributes="member: 1003">Given how C&amp;C works, whether Hairfoot or Treebore allow their players to do &quot;something that resembles the D&amp;D 3.x feat 'Whirlwind Attack'&quot; in the exact same way is immaterial, because as long as they're using a SIEGE Engine check.&nbsp; Because as long as they're both using a SIEGE Engine check, they're both doing it &quot;the same way.&quot;&nbsp; I think you're stuck on the idea that there's only &quot;one correct way&quot; to do a &quot;Whirlwind Attack.&quot;&nbsp; In D&amp;D 3, that's a correct assumption. The &quot;one correct way&quot; is the Feat description.&nbsp; In C&amp;C, that is not a correct assumption.&nbsp; I wish to focus on your use of the word &quot;inherantly.&quot;&nbsp; Whirlwind Attack is inherently covered by the C&amp;C's SIEGE Engine.&nbsp; However, it is not specifically described.&nbsp; There is no sentence or chart anywhere in the book that says &quot;this is the CL of a Whirlwind Attack, and this is the effect.&quot;&nbsp; But see my next point.Both correct.Look, if PC's can &quot;do stuff&quot; that looks, smells and quacks like a Whirlwind Attack, why make such a fuss?&nbsp; When Treebore says C&amp;C characters can &quot;perform Feat-like actions&quot;, that's an accurate statement.&nbsp; For someone whose frame of reference is from D&amp;D 3e, I think it's perfectly fair to say that &quot;Players have access to the SIEGE Engine mechanic, which adjudicates any non-class-skill action they can imagine, including ones that D&amp;D 3e might call a 'Feat.'&quot;&nbsp; They can also try stuff that D&amp;D 3e does not allow for.The &quot;two schools&quot; is correct.&nbsp; D&amp;D takes the approach of &quot;All actions are forbidden, unless your character sheet (skill, feat, class ability, etc.) says you can.&quot;&nbsp; C&amp;C takes the approach of &quot;All actions are permitted, unless they are specifically reserved for another class' core ability (Inspiring presence, wizard spells, etc.)&quot;&nbsp; The first approach provides certainty, consistency and clarity (as well as the knowledge that every activity you attempt has been well playtested), while the latter system provides more freedom of action.&nbsp; I don't think either system is better, just different strokes for different folks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Irda Ranger, post: 3734857, member: 1003"] Given how C&C works, whether Hairfoot or Treebore allow their players to do "something that resembles the D&D 3.x feat 'Whirlwind Attack'" in the exact same way is immaterial, because as long as they're using a SIEGE Engine check. Because as long as they're both using a SIEGE Engine check, they're both doing it "the same way." I think you're stuck on the idea that there's only "one correct way" to do a "Whirlwind Attack." In D&D 3, that's a correct assumption. The "one correct way" is the Feat description. In C&C, that is [I]not[/I] a correct assumption. I wish to focus on your use of the word "inherantly." Whirlwind Attack is [u]inherently[/u] covered by the C&C's SIEGE Engine. However, it is not [U]specifically[/U] described. There is no sentence or chart anywhere in the book that says "this is the CL of a Whirlwind Attack, and this is the effect." But see my next point. Both correct. Look, if PC's can "do stuff" that looks, smells and quacks like a Whirlwind Attack, why make such a fuss? When Treebore says C&C characters can "perform Feat-like actions", that's an accurate statement. For someone whose frame of reference is from D&D 3e, I think it's perfectly fair to say that "Players have access to the SIEGE Engine mechanic, which adjudicates any non-class-skill action they can imagine, including ones that D&D 3e might call a 'Feat.'" They can also try stuff that D&D 3e does not allow for. The "two schools" is correct. D&D takes the approach of "All actions are forbidden, unless your character sheet (skill, feat, class ability, etc.) says you can." C&C takes the approach of "All actions are permitted, unless they are specifically reserved for another class' core ability (Inspiring presence, wizard spells, etc.)" The first approach provides certainty, consistency and clarity (as well as the knowledge that every activity you attempt has been well playtested), while the latter system provides more freedom of action. I don't think either system is better, just different strokes for different folks. [/QUOTE]

Verification