Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7367414" data-attributes="member: 6795602">1.&nbsp; For someone talking so much about the battleaxe and longsword not feeling distinct it's easy to miss that this isn't your primary purpose.2.&nbsp; Argumentation ad Extremum isn't usually very effective.Just because not all mechanical differentiations would be bad (which is the point you were trying to make) doesn't mean that all mechanical differentiations are good.&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; Fighting styles don't need to be interesting on their own.&nbsp; They need to mechanically differentiate a fighter swinging an axe from say a cleric swinging an axe because the fighter should be mechanically better at some part of combat at level 1 than the cleric.&nbsp; They do this job very well.Advice:&nbsp; They can still do that job very well and do what you want without creating a different fighting style for each weapon but your going to have a much more productive time if you let go of all these justifications for why what you want must be inherently better and why the game doesn't make sense without it.&nbsp; Keep generic styles that cover a lot of different weapons but not all.&nbsp; Then instead of granting the current bonus that's listed make the benefit of each style depend on what weapon you chose.&nbsp; You can even use the abilities you already designed for this or maybe tweak them a little.&nbsp; It keeps fighters fighting better than clerics.&nbsp; It gives the mechanical feel you want.&nbsp; It doesn't pigeonhole a player to badly into a specific weapon type.&nbsp; It's cool and sounds fun and avoids all my concerns this way.&nbsp; Good Job.&nbsp; Now just stay away from trying to claim it's better and that current D&amp;D does it wrong and you'll be a lot happier <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7367414, member: 6795602"] 1. For someone talking so much about the battleaxe and longsword not feeling distinct it's easy to miss that this isn't your primary purpose. 2. Argumentation ad Extremum isn't usually very effective. Just because not all mechanical differentiations would be bad (which is the point you were trying to make) doesn't mean that all mechanical differentiations are good. 3. Fighting styles don't need to be interesting on their own. They need to mechanically differentiate a fighter swinging an axe from say a cleric swinging an axe because the fighter should be mechanically better at some part of combat at level 1 than the cleric. They do this job very well. [B]Advice: [/B]They can still do that job very well and do what you want without creating a different fighting style for each weapon but your going to have a much more productive time if you let go of all these justifications for why what you want must be inherently better and why the game doesn't make sense without it. Keep generic styles that cover a lot of different weapons but not all. Then instead of granting the current bonus that's listed make the benefit of each style depend on what weapon you chose. You can even use the abilities you already designed for this or maybe tweak them a little. It keeps fighters fighting better than clerics. It gives the mechanical feel you want. It doesn't pigeonhole a player to badly into a specific weapon type. It's cool and sounds fun and avoids all my concerns this way. Good Job. Now just stay away from trying to claim it's better and that current D&D does it wrong and you'll be a lot happier :) [/QUOTE]

Verification