The Power System, Combat, and the Rest of the Game
- Thread starter Hexmage-EN
- Start date
LostSoul
Adventurer
What if you give different things in the game world different levels?
There is, in fact, a general rule for shield bashes. If used as a weapon, a shield would be an improvised weapon, whose stats are listed in the weapons chart. Presumably a shield bash would be a basic attack with the shield as an improvised weapon.
For example, to lean on the ridonkulous trip monkey of 3e a little more.... a once-per-encounter trip effect is WAY more realistic than spamming it effectively, in that your opponent will pick up quickly that you are a one-trick pony and prevent you from using it as well FAST. If you want to be a trip monkey in real life, you would have to learn multiple techniques to put someone on the floor (read: learn additional powers that give a knock-down effect)..[/quote]
Watch Coung Le in action. Leg Scissor take downs and body slams. His opponent's know they are coming and, yet, he makes it look so easy. It's kind of like watching Bill "Superfoot" Wallace and his use of a few basic kicking techniques (he had no use of one arm), but his speed and precision of placement.
Of course, these are tournament fighters and the tournaments have rules and lack weapons. And, like you point out, they do have some other techniques in their arsenal.
My issue with per encounter is that the character cannot "attempt" the action again. No chance of feinting or otherwise setting the foe up or having them making a mistake that opens them up to another attempt that might succeed. Worse, you can't even use it when engaging another foe later in the same fight.
Alex319;4783305,
Alex, I think you hit the nail on the head (or close). Well, for me anyway.
My preference iin pre-3e is for how 2e AD&Ds Complete Fighter's Handbook and PO: Combat and Tactics handled such things. I just want the player to say, I attempt [x] rather than have a power list in front of them and feel limited by per encounter/daily. I suppose it is also why, as a DM and player, I prefer the on the fly maneuver system in Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) to the per encounter systems found in both Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords and 4e.
Alex, I think you hit the nail on the head (or close). Well, for me anyway.
My preference iin pre-3e is for how 2e AD&Ds Complete Fighter's Handbook and PO: Combat and Tactics handled such things. I just want the player to say, I attempt [x] rather than have a power list in front of them and feel limited by per encounter/daily. I suppose it is also why, as a DM and player, I prefer the on the fly maneuver system in Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) to the per encounter systems found in both Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords and 4e.
Last edited:
Agreed
Such a distinction was NOT my point! I specifically addressed 4E (not 3E), and rather obviously the mass of 4E rules -- the subject my observation concerned -- was not a feature of previous editions.
I see. I thought you were referring to both 3e and 4e because you mentioned "a philosophy that came to the fore in 3e and dominates 4e."
But you did state, in reference to the 4e power system, that "most of the design is to the end of reducing the significance of choices." I was trying to understand why you thought powers reduced the significance of choices. So what is an example of a choice that was less significant in 4e than in 3e? Or am I still misunderstanding the point about "choices"?
But you did state, in reference to the 4e power system, that "most of the design is to the end of reducing the significance of choices." I was trying to understand why you thought powers reduced the significance of choices. So what is an example of a choice that was less significant in 4e than in 3e? Or am I still misunderstanding the point about "choices"?
Similar Threads
