Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8764500" data-attributes="member: 4937">My preference is to have a big pool of maneuvers and to have a fighter know all of them with maneuvers the fighter doesn't know just cost an extra dice to perform.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most maneuvers should represent rather generic combat abilities, which for the battlemaster they already do so that's good.&nbsp;&nbsp; So in my system it would be much less a matter of 'maneuvers known' than maneuvers you are proficient in. I'm not a huge fan of subclasses.&nbsp; To me if your class needs subclasses, it suggests your feat system isn't very robust and your classes aren't very flexible.&nbsp; To me writing a subclass is almost a cop-out, suggesting the designer wanted to deliberately limit player options in order to reduce the amount of thought and play testing needed to write out good rules.Feats should either improve how good you are at a maneuver, or interact with the maneuver system or the combat system.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, &quot;Whenever you score a critical hit on a foe, you gain a bonus superiority die which you may use in the same combat.&quot; is the sort of thing that to me is a Feat and not a maneuver. I've had a lot of success with Feats that represent some sort of martial tradition such as &quot;Skirmisher&quot;, &quot;Heavy Infantry&quot;, &quot;Gladiator&quot;, &quot;Duelist&quot;, &quot;Hoplite&quot;, &quot;Assault Trooper&quot;, &quot;Legionnaire&quot; or whatever.&nbsp; Among the things I like about them is that they are not only descriptive of&nbsp; the fighter's experience and have mythic resonance through referencing some real world fighting style, but they make imagining low level armies pretty straightforward.&nbsp; Typically they give relatively small circumstantial bonuses in two or three areas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8764500, member: 4937"] My preference is to have a big pool of maneuvers and to have a fighter know all of them with maneuvers the fighter doesn't know just cost an extra dice to perform. Most maneuvers should represent rather generic combat abilities, which for the battlemaster they already do so that's good. So in my system it would be much less a matter of 'maneuvers known' than maneuvers you are proficient in. I'm not a huge fan of subclasses. To me if your class needs subclasses, it suggests your feat system isn't very robust and your classes aren't very flexible. To me writing a subclass is almost a cop-out, suggesting the designer wanted to deliberately limit player options in order to reduce the amount of thought and play testing needed to write out good rules. Feats should either improve how good you are at a maneuver, or interact with the maneuver system or the combat system. For example, "Whenever you score a critical hit on a foe, you gain a bonus superiority die which you may use in the same combat." is the sort of thing that to me is a Feat and not a maneuver. I've had a lot of success with Feats that represent some sort of martial tradition such as "Skirmisher", "Heavy Infantry", "Gladiator", "Duelist", "Hoplite", "Assault Trooper", "Legionnaire" or whatever. Among the things I like about them is that they are not only descriptive of the fighter's experience and have mythic resonance through referencing some real world fighting style, but they make imagining low level armies pretty straightforward. Typically they give relatively small circumstantial bonuses in two or three areas. [/QUOTE]

Verification