Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5964682" data-attributes="member: 1465">I'm not a huge fan of combat detailed descriptions... in theory I should like them a lot, but IMXP after a couple of combats players get already tired by the descriptions which also become repetitive.Personally I think that at least a small number of abilities or options are needed (in the sense that they should be defined in the rules) for the basic concepts beyond damaging such as disarming, tripping, grappling, sundering a weapon, shield bashing and pushing/pulling the opponent. IMHO it's good if the rules provide a standard way of doing these.I liked the 3ed approach of making these &quot;basic&quot; abilities available to anyone who wanted to try (for the sake of verisimilitude, so that you aren't forced to tell a non-fighter &quot;you cannot even try to disarm your opponent&quot;) but then making them so that the Fighter is the one who has the chance of learning to use these efficiently - eventually the problem of the 3ed Fighter was for me that she still doesn't get enough feats.More Fighter-only special abilities in the game IMHO serve two main purposes:1) They allow the player of a Fighter a different gaming experience compared to other classes, and also delivers a reason to stay single class2) They allow differentiation between different Fighter characters, especially good if you have 2 in the same party but also nice if you play another Fighter in a different campaignBut that said, I don't really think these special abilities are needed to creative players, I think they are needed most to less-creative players. Truly creative players don't need lots of abilities defined, they can come up with lots of ideas even from a tiny pool of options.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5964682, member: 1465"] I'm not a huge fan of combat detailed descriptions... in theory I should like them a lot, but IMXP after a couple of combats players get already tired by the descriptions which also become repetitive. Personally I think that at least a small number of abilities or options are needed (in the sense that they should be defined in the rules) for the basic concepts beyond damaging such as disarming, tripping, grappling, sundering a weapon, shield bashing and pushing/pulling the opponent. IMHO it's good if the rules provide a standard way of doing these. I liked the 3ed approach of making these "basic" abilities available to anyone who wanted to try (for the sake of verisimilitude, so that you aren't forced to tell a non-fighter "you cannot even try to disarm your opponent") but then making them so that the Fighter is the one who has the chance of learning to use these efficiently - eventually the problem of the 3ed Fighter was for me that she still doesn't get enough feats. More Fighter-only special abilities in the game IMHO serve two main purposes: 1) They allow the player of a Fighter a different gaming experience compared to other classes, and also delivers a reason to stay single class 2) They allow differentiation between different Fighter characters, especially good if you have 2 in the same party but also nice if you play another Fighter in a different campaign But that said, I don't really think these special abilities are needed to creative players, I think they are needed most to less-creative players. Truly creative players don't need lots of abilities defined, they can come up with lots of ideas even from a tiny pool of options. [/QUOTE]

Verification