Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evildmguy" data-source="post: 9314366" data-attributes="member: 6092">Before I go back to SA, I was rereading this thread.&nbsp; I do agree berserker shouldn't get evasion in core and adept should.&nbsp; I could definitely see changing that.&nbsp; I think someone said that shield focus is more powerful than evasion.&nbsp; I think it's a way for fighters to have evasion.&nbsp; It just doesn't work in my mind for some reason.&nbsp; I have accepted an agile creature finding or moving to a place that avoids a spell or effect.&nbsp; I can't accept a shield being able to absorb unlimited damage.&nbsp; It doesn't help that the system has maintenance for mundane equipment and the damaged and broken status for equipment.&nbsp; I will have to read back more to see if there is anything else.&nbsp; Thinking about SA more but I'm still not sure what to do.&nbsp; I'm not a system master so not sure of all effects this could have in other areas.&nbsp; My own thoughts.Coming from 3E, and still playing PF1 with three action economy, I like the idea that a character does one action at a time.&nbsp; Once they stop doing that action, they can't do more.&nbsp; Then add in the feat Spring Attack, a la 3E/PF1, to let them keep moving around the battlefield.&nbsp; Or make it a maneuver, so it costs exertion to keep moving.&nbsp; This might stop some movement during a turn.&nbsp; I think it makes movement more tactical.&nbsp; As a maneuver, might allow them to move as a reaction off their turn, again at cost.&nbsp; I don't mind the idea that it does a chain of conditions leading up to stunned but I think that has bigger implications and is complex.&nbsp; I mean, once we do that for stunned, I think it should be done for more conditions, such as paralyzed or petrified.&nbsp; I like the idea of having to inflict so much damage before they have to save for stun.&nbsp; The high level fighters have ways to use their reaction on their turn and I'm not sure how I feel about that.&nbsp; Again, I think reaction should be defined as off a character's turn.&nbsp; At the same time, they have done it to get something extra and now can't use shield focus or an attack of opportunity (or maneuver) on someone else's turn.&nbsp; Okay, new question but it's for 5e and a5e.&nbsp; How do others have dominate work?&nbsp; It says that when given a command, the target of dominate must obey to the best of its ability.&nbsp; In my specific campaign right now, the players are worried that the fighter with SA will be dominated and then have to run around and attack all of them.&nbsp; Dominate is the worst kind of &quot;save or suck&quot; type spell since it's no fun to do that to your fellow players.&nbsp; Is that how others play it?&nbsp; Do you remind players of tactics they used before and to use them now?&nbsp; Do you allow malicious compliance?&nbsp; That's one of the few areas 4E had better defined.&nbsp; When dominated, they just had to do basic attacks or actions.&nbsp; Okay, that's enough.&nbsp; Thanks for the discussion!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evildmguy, post: 9314366, member: 6092"] Before I go back to SA, I was rereading this thread. I do agree berserker shouldn't get evasion in core and adept should. I could definitely see changing that. I think someone said that shield focus is more powerful than evasion. I think it's a way for fighters to have evasion. It just doesn't work in my mind for some reason. I have accepted an agile creature finding or moving to a place that avoids a spell or effect. I can't accept a shield being able to absorb unlimited damage. It doesn't help that the system has maintenance for mundane equipment and the damaged and broken status for equipment. I will have to read back more to see if there is anything else. Thinking about SA more but I'm still not sure what to do. I'm not a system master so not sure of all effects this could have in other areas. My own thoughts. Coming from 3E, and still playing PF1 with three action economy, I like the idea that a character does one action at a time. Once they stop doing that action, they can't do more. Then add in the feat Spring Attack, a la 3E/PF1, to let them keep moving around the battlefield. Or make it a maneuver, so it costs exertion to keep moving. This might stop some movement during a turn. I think it makes movement more tactical. As a maneuver, might allow them to move as a reaction off their turn, again at cost. I don't mind the idea that it does a chain of conditions leading up to stunned but I think that has bigger implications and is complex. I mean, once we do that for stunned, I think it should be done for more conditions, such as paralyzed or petrified. I like the idea of having to inflict so much damage before they have to save for stun. The high level fighters have ways to use their reaction on their turn and I'm not sure how I feel about that. Again, I think reaction should be defined as off a character's turn. At the same time, they have done it to get something extra and now can't use shield focus or an attack of opportunity (or maneuver) on someone else's turn. Okay, new question but it's for 5e and a5e. How do others have dominate work? It says that when given a command, the target of dominate must obey to the best of its ability. In my specific campaign right now, the players are worried that the fighter with SA will be dominated and then have to run around and attack all of them. Dominate is the worst kind of "save or suck" type spell since it's no fun to do that to your fellow players. Is that how others play it? Do you remind players of tactics they used before and to use them now? Do you allow malicious compliance? That's one of the few areas 4E had better defined. When dominated, they just had to do basic attacks or actions. Okay, that's enough. Thanks for the discussion! [/QUOTE]

Verification