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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6041240" data-attributes="member: 50304">I agree. It is almost like they went flailing around for a way to pad it with more non-knowledge skills because the list of physical skills was anemic compared to how many knowledge topics there are.I did like them do-coupling the skills from the ability scores, though. I'm very excited to see that back.Well, that sort of is the Rogue from most editions. The game, at its core, has two primary archetypes: Fighting Man and Magician. I suppose you could could argue that the Cleric is nothing more than an inferior Wizard that has some healing spells too.The Rogue isn't a Magician, he's a Fighting Man. He doesn't use heavy armor or heavy weapons. He uses dirty tricks in combat and he's got the best maneuverability, skills, and he's usually better at damage avoidance than a Magician.As it should be, as far as the Maneuver goes.Expertise is basically the quantifying mechanic for Fighting Man powers the way that Spell levels are for Magician powers. Different classes of Fighting Man get different lists of Maneuvers, just as different classes of Magician get different lists of Spells. It is actually pretty elegant in principle - it is just that those lists need a lot more refinement.The Fighter really should have Iron Will on his list. The Rogue should really have some maneuvers that create negative effects on enemies and some better movement-based maneuvers. I think I'd like to see Tumbling Dodge be Rogue-exclusive.Just wait until you use Composed Attack to help offset the Disadvantage! Roll 2d20 and 1d8 for each attack. <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    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Re-read sneak attack. It doesn't require Advantage.Some people didn't want to see at-will magic baked into every implementation of the Wizard and the Cleric. I'm not one of those people, but I see why they would want to give them in-roads here.The slot cut-backs was definitely needed - maybe not that severe, but necessary. As to not having an at-will fallback, that's now a player decision rather than predetermined by the class.They shelves are a little too bare right now, but I like the cupboard itself. The tradition unlocks At-Will magic if you want it, and a signature spell mechanic. The Signature Spell part needs to be refined more, but it has a lot of potential. Personally, I'm holding out for the ability to scale the Signature Spell by level and maybe even customize it.I dunno, the "don't NERF me, bro," argument base has never been compelling for me given the Wizard's track record as being a Quadratic monster of a class.While I'm in no rush to give Wizards a bunch of extra flexibility AND power, I do think the Signature Spell is ripe design territory for letting players create something unique for their character. I don't think you should just -choose- your signature spell, I think you should make it. Thunder wave? No way! I'm a pyromancer. Cast it in a 3rd level slot? Now I can create a lingering fire aura in that area. Cast it in a 9th level slot? It manifests as a Balrog that I can puppet to rip your face off. Oh, that guy? He's a 17th level war-mage too. No, he doesn't use my spell at all. He's like, all into Ice and stuff. His Smash-Ball 9th level version drops a giant glacier on your head. Yeah, his brother's into that stuff too, only he summons a herd of artificial ice bison to stampede you.Yeah, this one feels like wasted potential.It seems like "MOAR POWAH" == More Fun for some people. I think that's true some of the time. At other times it isn't. There's some sort of parabolic arc involving diminishing returns to the game overall that needs to be observed. Quadratic Casters and Linear Fighters from the prior editions certainly showed both bad extremes of these bell curves.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

Verification