Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmu1" data-source="post: 4179655" data-attributes="member: 319">Don't like it, not even a little bit. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />To begin with, I don't like the concept of having a "leader" class in and of itself. The assumption that if there's a Warlord in the party then my character will defer to his leadership and advice in combat, doesn't sit well with me at all. Writing rules that put one character in a position of authority (no matter how subtle) over others is boneheaded design. Second, I don't like the idea of making "tactics" an in-character skill. Perhaps that's inconsistent of me, since I have no problem with abstracting (for example) Diplomacy in the same way, but tactical combat is such a big part of the game that I feel it is actually one of those things that ought to come down to player skill. Not that this really changes anything in terms of metagame battle tactics - aside from introducing yet another layer of abstraction, anyway. Now, instead of using the best tactics you can think of to play a guy who is good at fighting, you're using the best tactics you can come up with to play the guy who's good at using tactics...</blockquote>