Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8744180" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes.  I don't feel that there is a strong in game universe explanation for why you can't repeat a mundane effect all the time.  Any power that is limited to like 'once per short rest' or 'once per long rest' or 'three times per day' or whatever unit of time you choose very quickly to me feels like a spell.  The 4e classes were limited to powers they could use for game and narrative reasons, not for good in game reasons.  The in-universe explanations for why you could do your Cool Trick four times in a row to different opponents all broke down under scrutiny.  I might be tolerant of mechanics like, "Enemies get a bonus to defend against Cool Trick if you've already tried it to them once in the same combat.", but that has a tight in game reason - it's easier to defend against something if you are expecting it.   I'm a little bit OK with having some minor currency that lets you break the action economy in limited ways, but first, I don't think it's necessary  because there are more obvious and more grounded in the in universe solutions.  There are characters in fiction that are masters of narrative currency (let's call them 'the Lucky'), but they aren't necessarily what we think of as fighters.  What I don't want though is to adopt Pathfinder like 'mana point' systems for classes such as Grit as is used by the Gunfighter and many of their other classes.  These systems I think break people's suspension of disbelief and aesthetic preferences by turning martial classes into minor spellcasters with 'gun magic' or 'sword magic' or whatever.  Still, a "burst" of speed per combat is easier to justify in universe why it doesn't happen all the time because we know intuitively you can't go all out all the time, and because you can always account for it as 'fractional speed'.  The action points represent being somewhere on the spectrum of discrete units - "2.4 attacks per round" as it were.None of which is say that I'm opposed to fighters acquiring supernatural powers, just that I don't particularly like them paralleling spell-casters or that we have color of supernatural power as a universal rather than optional attribute of the class.I think none of that matters so much as understanding what warrior archetype characters do inherently.  What does it mean to have prowess and martial ability?Again, I'm OK with the concept of a 'Lucky/Destined/Favored' class that gains narrative currency to spend, but I don't want to say that is a solution to the fighter problem if there are no other solutions available.  It's a great archetype and we see it show up in fairy tales with characters that just have things tend to go their way because the universe is smiling on them, or with say Sakka in Avatar the Last Airbender who seems to have the ability to roll 20's when the chips are down, or even with the Providential Grace that blesses Tolkien's hobbit protagonists.  I just think that Thorin or Boromir is very clearly not of that class, but instead filled with martial prowess and defined by that in a way Bilbo and Frodo are not.</blockquote>

Verification