Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 4343724" data-attributes="member: 1645">There are multiple facets to this issue.If you have one clear super-attack that is always better than your next best attack, then, yes, you would always choose it.  Maybe you won't successfully roll for an "opening" in the system I described, but, yes, you will always choose that one super-attack "tree" (in your parlance).This leaves us with an uninteresting choice, from the player's perspective, but it does vary the outcome significantly, and that's worth something.  You could think of this as a bit like an expanded critical hit system, where some attacks -- probably far more than 1-in-20 -- don't just do twice as much damage but hit every opponent nearby, or knock someone prone, etc.The bigger issue is having super-attacks that dominate all other options.  You can take the easy way out, which 4E's designers did, and give them once-per-day constraints, and that does give the player a resource constraint to consider, but I would much, much rather see exploits that can only be exploited under the right circumstances, and where strategies emerge from the combination of options available to everyone.Then the player's challenge would be using the right exploits at the right time and maneuvering in combat to make the right time happen, not expending a meta-game resource at the right meta-time.</blockquote>