Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3881525" data-attributes="member: 4937">But that just it.&nbsp; Maces and swords already have distinguishing features.&nbsp; One will feel very different than the other if you are fighting skeletons, for instance. What you really mean is that they should feel &quot;more different&quot;.&nbsp; But there is a limit to how far you can take that.&nbsp; In 1st edition, fighting with a mace and fighting with a sword felt very different because of thier different to hit AC modifiers vs. different sorts of armors, and thier different relative effectiveness vs. large creatures.&nbsp; But, this was found to be too complicated.&nbsp; Maybe that was so but part of the difference in feeling has never been recaptured.&nbsp; Maces and swords have never been so different since.UA brought us 'specialization' rules which gave us the idea that you could have a fighter who was 'really good with the bow' or 'really good with a military pick'.&nbsp; That was a mechanical distinction.&nbsp; A person who was really good with a bow and one really good with say a Halbred would feel different.&nbsp; There was however something lost with this.&nbsp; Previously, fighter's would switch between longswords and military picks, between halbreds and daggers.&nbsp; Prior to weapon specialization, if you found a +5 bohemian ear spoon there was a good chance your fighter would use it.&nbsp; After specialization, your fighter only used the weapon he was specialized in.&nbsp; Especially by 3rd edition, there was the expectation that if you specialized in a weapon you'd be given or allowed to procure your specialty weapon.&nbsp; So there was a trade off.3.5 has been snowballing in one direction.&nbsp; Not just toward more choices and more variaty, but to more pointless choices.&nbsp; The choices are no longer about making a character unique, they are about choosing between two mechanics.&nbsp; The keep piling on choices of mechanical differences instead of consolidating them into something more flexible.&nbsp; I'd like to think that the main good thing that could come out of 4e is some better designed choices so that it wasn't necessary to have as many choices to span all the possible ideas in a meaningful way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3881525, member: 4937"] But that just it. Maces and swords already have distinguishing features. One will feel very different than the other if you are fighting skeletons, for instance. What you really mean is that they should feel "more different". But there is a limit to how far you can take that. In 1st edition, fighting with a mace and fighting with a sword felt very different because of thier different to hit AC modifiers vs. different sorts of armors, and thier different relative effectiveness vs. large creatures. But, this was found to be too complicated. Maybe that was so but part of the difference in feeling has never been recaptured. Maces and swords have never been so different since. UA brought us 'specialization' rules which gave us the idea that you could have a fighter who was 'really good with the bow' or 'really good with a military pick'. That was a mechanical distinction. A person who was really good with a bow and one really good with say a Halbred would feel different. There was however something lost with this. Previously, fighter's would switch between longswords and military picks, between halbreds and daggers. Prior to weapon specialization, if you found a +5 bohemian ear spoon there was a good chance your fighter would use it. After specialization, your fighter only used the weapon he was specialized in. Especially by 3rd edition, there was the expectation that if you specialized in a weapon you'd be given or allowed to procure your specialty weapon. So there was a trade off. 3.5 has been snowballing in one direction. Not just toward more choices and more variaty, but to more pointless choices. The choices are no longer about making a character unique, they are about choosing between two mechanics. The keep piling on choices of mechanical differences instead of consolidating them into something more flexible. I'd like to think that the main good thing that could come out of 4e is some better designed choices so that it wasn't necessary to have as many choices to span all the possible ideas in a meaningful way. [/QUOTE]

Verification