Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashkelon" data-source="post: 6666801" data-attributes="member: 6774887">Of the battlemaster, no. In general, probably. The battlemaster suffers from his resource pool being too small and not refreshing often enough. This leads to gameplay where 80% of the time, you are merely making basic attacks. If superiority dice refreshed every battle, then you might see slightly more interesting combats. However, that doesn't work given the fighter's basic chassis as that would cause maneuvers to deal too much damage. Also, it runs into the same issue all such mechanics have; it encourages spamming of the most optimal abilities. The in combat choice palet is varied enough with shove, grapple, and improvisation. The issue is, those options generally tend to be less potent than a single attack. As such, the optimal choice is to simply make a basic attack. That being said, I would prefer limited use abilities (tied to some type of resource mechanic), that give the warrior capabilities that cannot be replicated through the current combat actions (shove, grapple, improvise).Any number of methods. Here are a few I'm partial to. Stamina Points that recover after a 5 minute rest. Momentum that recovers at when you roll initiative, when you crit, or when you kill an enemy.Combo points that require weaker basic attacks to build up so you can use more exceptional maneuvers. Focus that you gain when you hit an enemy, but lose when you are hit. On top of those, you could also have special stances and you must be in a particular stance in order to use certain maneuvers. This could allow for different combat styles to truly feel different from one another. Well there are a few problems with this premise. First off, being good at combat is about more than just dealing and taking damage. The wizard may not deal as much single target damage as the fighter, but it would be hard to argue that they have less of an impact on the outcome of any particular combat. The same is true for the cleric. Even the rogue has substantial combat contribution.So that would imply that everyone can contribute to combat in roughly equal (though different) ways. Of course, you can't really measure the value of the rogue's mobility, the cleric's support, or the wizard's battlefield control. What you can measure is DPR, which is why it is what is most often brought up when discussing a classes combat capabilities.So does the fighter's marginal DPR advantage over the rogue (the rogue actually fluctuates between dealing more and dealing less damage than the fighter over the course of 20 levels), justify having no non combat abilities. The rogue gets 2 more trained skills, 4 areas of expertise, reliable talent, blindsense, and other abilities that are all very useful outside of combat. How do you even come up with a method to compare the two classes outside of combat. Even if you have the fighter 2 more trained skills and 2 areas of expertise, they are still way behind the rogue when it comes to noncombat situations. And then there are spelllcasters. How can you measure the utility of flight, teleportation, divination, or spells that can outright bypass non-combat encounters?</blockquote>

Verification