Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3361791" data-attributes="member: 48965">But C&amp;C does &quot;Rox&quot;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Simple System+ Tactical Thinking+ Imagination+ DM FIAT(or group consensus)= Interesting Combat is for me a better analogy than the above and is true of all systems.&nbsp; In the D&amp;D 3.x DC's are given based on difficulty.&nbsp; C&amp;C also has a general rule on +/- a certain amount depending on difficulty of an action. Don't really see the difference.&nbsp; C&amp;C already has rules for: Charging, Grappling, Overbearing, Disarming, Evading, Flanking, Rear Attacks, Two-wpn Fighting, Cover, Concealment, Dodging, Disengaging (all this is from memory right now so I might be missing some options.)&nbsp; Now since we've established that these rules exist in C&amp;C it really boils down to DM Fiat on when to give you bonuses to achieve them, just like DC's in 3.x.&nbsp; You could argue that feats allow you to define what your PC is good at but in my mind this isn't necessarily the case as the DM will still set the DC and can increase it if he feels your character shouldn't or wouldn't be able to do something.&nbsp; If you ask him why and he gives you a list of mitigating factors that you agree/disagree with, how is this any different from DM fiat?This is the biggest misconception I see with C&amp;C, check above they are.&nbsp; Rewards come from deciding whether to flank, rear attack, take Cover or use Concealment, Disarm or Disengage etc. Each action rewards in different ways from I just hit him.&nbsp; The biggest difference for me is that these options are kept simple in their explanations as well as their implementation. In the end it has more to do with the players and DM's than cool feats and abilities or an abundance of tactical rules.&nbsp; In D&amp;D I have seen someone find a combination of abilities that work well and do the same thing over and over again in numerous combats, this(IMHO) is as bad as I hit syndrome.&nbsp; I have a little bit of a problem with systems like these unless their is a balancing factor like a penalty to AC next round, or your first actions penalty is dependent upon how many actions you are taking, something along those lines.&nbsp; This is because in essence their is no real reason to stop taking multiple actions as yes my chances of succeding decrease with each action but it in no way hinders me and I might just get lucky and roll great.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3361791, member: 48965"] But C&C does "Rox" :D Simple System+ Tactical Thinking+ Imagination+ DM FIAT(or group consensus)= Interesting Combat is for me a better analogy than the above and is true of all systems. In the D&D 3.x DC's are given based on difficulty. C&C also has a general rule on +/- a certain amount depending on difficulty of an action. Don't really see the difference. C&C already has rules for: Charging, Grappling, Overbearing, Disarming, Evading, Flanking, Rear Attacks, Two-wpn Fighting, Cover, Concealment, Dodging, Disengaging (all this is from memory right now so I might be missing some options.) Now since we've established that these rules exist in C&C it really boils down to DM Fiat on when to give you bonuses to achieve them, just like DC's in 3.x. You could argue that feats allow you to define what your PC is good at but in my mind this isn't necessarily the case as the DM will still set the DC and can increase it if he feels your character shouldn't or wouldn't be able to do something. If you ask him why and he gives you a list of mitigating factors that you agree/disagree with, how is this any different from DM fiat? This is the biggest misconception I see with C&C, check above they are. Rewards come from deciding whether to flank, rear attack, take Cover or use Concealment, Disarm or Disengage etc. Each action rewards in different ways from I just hit him. The biggest difference for me is that these options are kept simple in their explanations as well as their implementation. In the end it has more to do with the players and DM's than cool feats and abilities or an abundance of tactical rules. In D&D I have seen someone find a combination of abilities that work well and do the same thing over and over again in numerous combats, this(IMHO) is as bad as I hit syndrome. I have a little bit of a problem with systems like these unless their is a balancing factor like a penalty to AC next round, or your first actions penalty is dependent upon how many actions you are taking, something along those lines. This is because in essence their is no real reason to stop taking multiple actions as yes my chances of succeding decrease with each action but it in no way hinders me and I might just get lucky and roll great. [/QUOTE]

Verification