Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashkelon" data-source="post: 6366129" data-attributes="member: 6774887">While you are technically correct, you are also very wrong. Nine times in ten, doing more damage is the best option. You can easily do the math to calculate this. The only exception to this is spells because spells can produce wonderous effects far more potent than imrpovisation could ever hope to match.None of the examples people have given of "out of the box" thinking have actually lead to more efficient combat resolution. That alone should be telling. Improvised actions are typically much morse than 2+ attacks. The higher the level the fighter is, the worse the trade off is for using an improvised action instead of an Attack.On top of that, some people don't want to rely on the DMs whimsy for performing mechanically interesting abilities. Furthermore, most of the maneuvers I have suggested could never ever be replicated through improvisation. So improvisation really falls flat for players who want abilities that are both reliable and beyond the scope of mere improvisation.Remember: just because you have a few codified abilities, it doesn't mean you can't still improvise for all of those basic things (like flipping a table if you really felt that was a tactically sound decision)/</blockquote>