Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
SRM Marking Marked and Other 4Eisms
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4075180" data-attributes="member: 40961"><p>Yeah. A better example would have been 4e Positioning Strike versus 3e Bull Rush.</p><p></p><p>The bottom line for me in this debate is this- I want to be able to do cool things to my opponents. The idea of a fighter "marking" an enemy sounds cool to me. I can think of a lot of cool ways to do it, and a lot of cool effects that could go along with it. Cool, cool, cool. I'm allowed to say that.</p><p></p><p>I can also imagine that the more "utility" things I can do to an opponent, the more likely I am to encounter a situation where that utility effect might be helpful on an ally. For example, if I can strike an opponent and knock him a few spaces away from me, I can use that to accelerate an ally's movement. There's bound to be a few situations where the disadvantage of damaging my ally is less bad than the advantage of moving my ally is good.</p><p></p><p>But overall, I'd rather deal with that through DM discretion, player maturity, and if I have to flat out handwaving, than go back to pre Book of Nine Swords melee combat for fighters, where the most traditional fighter types could 1) charge, 2) power attack, and 3) hope the rogue gave them a small flanking bonus. Other options existed, but were generally poor choices- you could bull rush, for example, but it was rare that bull rushing was better than charging and power attacking. That combat was dry and unappealing in comparison to later developments.</p><p></p><p>If my alternatives are A) interesting combat with a diversity of techniques and tactical options, and B) dry damage trading, I'll take (A) in an instant, even if it comes attached to numerous downsides. I could be talked out of taking (A), but... those downsides would have to be awfully significant.</p><p></p><p>Its not about whether downsides exist. I'll happily grant that a rules system with the need for DM discretion in adjudicating a rule is less well written than a rules system in which the rule is clear and doesn't have exploits, <strong>IF AND ONLY IF</strong> both rules systems can accomplish the same things.</p><p></p><p>If you want to tell me that a power like Positioning Strike is bad, you've got to come up with a way for me to accomplish the same things in the ruleset without having to use DM judgment to accommodate the possibility for exploits. If you can't do that, you're wasting your breath.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4075180, member: 40961"] Yeah. A better example would have been 4e Positioning Strike versus 3e Bull Rush. The bottom line for me in this debate is this- I want to be able to do cool things to my opponents. The idea of a fighter "marking" an enemy sounds cool to me. I can think of a lot of cool ways to do it, and a lot of cool effects that could go along with it. Cool, cool, cool. I'm allowed to say that. I can also imagine that the more "utility" things I can do to an opponent, the more likely I am to encounter a situation where that utility effect might be helpful on an ally. For example, if I can strike an opponent and knock him a few spaces away from me, I can use that to accelerate an ally's movement. There's bound to be a few situations where the disadvantage of damaging my ally is less bad than the advantage of moving my ally is good. But overall, I'd rather deal with that through DM discretion, player maturity, and if I have to flat out handwaving, than go back to pre Book of Nine Swords melee combat for fighters, where the most traditional fighter types could 1) charge, 2) power attack, and 3) hope the rogue gave them a small flanking bonus. Other options existed, but were generally poor choices- you could bull rush, for example, but it was rare that bull rushing was better than charging and power attacking. That combat was dry and unappealing in comparison to later developments. If my alternatives are A) interesting combat with a diversity of techniques and tactical options, and B) dry damage trading, I'll take (A) in an instant, even if it comes attached to numerous downsides. I could be talked out of taking (A), but... those downsides would have to be awfully significant. Its not about whether downsides exist. I'll happily grant that a rules system with the need for DM discretion in adjudicating a rule is less well written than a rules system in which the rule is clear and doesn't have exploits, [B]IF AND ONLY IF[/B] both rules systems can accomplish the same things. If you want to tell me that a power like Positioning Strike is bad, you've got to come up with a way for me to accomplish the same things in the ruleset without having to use DM judgment to accommodate the possibility for exploits. If you can't do that, you're wasting your breath. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
SRM Marking Marked and Other 4Eisms
Top