Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rant" data-source="post: 8449864" data-attributes="member: 7033019">That's an odd thing to infer. I'm not taking offense, but, typically people entirely new to the hobby who have never purchased a &quot;high content TTRPG book at launch&quot; aren't taking deep dives into specific rules interactions. What led you to believe that? To answer the implied question, no, I've purchased and played other tabletop RPGs in the past, this is not my first. This is the first I've seen with these kind of jarring issues present, but it is not my first launch product, no.&nbsp; First via Kickstarter, yes - perhaps that implies a different level of quality I should have been aware of?Thanks for the clarification. That addresses a few of the odd &quot;if-then&quot; scenarios I noted, but I'm not sure I understand the goal of the mechanics at all. The &quot;attack&quot; portion, Press The Attack, is identical to Reckless Attack except for eating up a bonus action. The &quot;defense&quot; portion, without the threat of an OA, is either an overly obvious countermeasure, or a &quot;guessing game&quot; if multiple attackers might be using Press The Attack against a sole defender. Given this, is it possible both Press the Attack and Fall Back could be simply removed altogether? The corrected version is still a problem, as an option with a built in flaw making it more of a layer of unneeded guesswork as opposed to a legitimate tactic, and also offers less detriment for Spellcasters. Press The Attack already eats up a bonus action and incurs the attacker a penalty, in that they grant advantage to attacks against themselves, like Reckless Attack, but it is already weaker due to using up a Bonus action. This bit of design would be better off removed altogether, if it is to be paired with Fall Back. 5e needed a lot of things, but a series of &quot;guessing games&quot; wasn't one of them. That's not a tactical decision, it's a rules headache, particularly as the penalty of Fall Back, without the Opportunity Attack, does not apply to most defending Spellcasters who use DC-based abilities rather than Attack Roll-based abilities. It offers an option similar in power to the Dodge action, which is an &quot;action,&quot; not a reaction, and does not appear balanced, tested, or well thought out as a mechanic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rant, post: 8449864, member: 7033019"] That's an odd thing to infer. I'm not taking offense, but, typically people entirely new to the hobby who have never purchased a "high content TTRPG book at launch" aren't taking deep dives into specific rules interactions. What led you to believe that? To answer the implied question, no, I've purchased and played other tabletop RPGs in the past, this is not my first. This is the first I've seen with these kind of jarring issues present, but it is not my first launch product, no. First via Kickstarter, yes - perhaps that implies a different level of quality I should have been aware of? Thanks for the clarification. That addresses a few of the odd "if-then" scenarios I noted, but I'm not sure I understand the goal of the mechanics at all. The "attack" portion, Press The Attack, is identical to Reckless Attack except for eating up a bonus action. The "defense" portion, without the threat of an OA, is either an overly obvious countermeasure, or a "guessing game" if multiple attackers might be using Press The Attack against a sole defender. Given this, is it possible both Press the Attack and Fall Back could be simply removed altogether? The corrected version is still a problem, as an option with a built in flaw making it more of a layer of unneeded guesswork as opposed to a legitimate tactic, and also offers less detriment for Spellcasters. Press The Attack already eats up a bonus action and incurs the attacker a penalty, in that they grant advantage to attacks against themselves, like Reckless Attack, but it is already weaker due to using up a Bonus action. This bit of design would be better off removed altogether, if it is to be paired with Fall Back. 5e needed a lot of things, but a series of "guessing games" wasn't one of them. That's not a tactical decision, it's a rules headache, particularly as the penalty of Fall Back, without the Opportunity Attack, does not apply to most defending Spellcasters who use DC-based abilities rather than Attack Roll-based abilities. It offers an option similar in power to the Dodge action, which is an "action," not a reaction, and does not appear balanced, tested, or well thought out as a mechanic. [/QUOTE]

Verification