Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5889143" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, this gets to the heart of why the discussion is so frustrating.I really don't care which ruleset is more this or more that.  I really don't.  The primary criteria for judging any mechanic is, IMO how flexible is this mechanic?  If you have two mechanics, one can only do X, and one can do X and Y, then the second mechanic is better.  And, yes, I'd say objectively better.With Martial powers, there seems to be two objections.  The first is probably easiest to deal with:  martial powers have quasi-magical effects.  Come and Get It is the poster child here.  Powers that have no obvious correlation to the in-game fiction.  As I said, the solution here is pretty simple, don't use those mechanics.  They aren't that common, you have at least three or four other choices at any level which do map directly onto the in-game fiction and the game will certainly not break or be affected in any way by their removal.Now, the second issue is a bit stickier.  The idea the martial powers must be repeatable.  That if I can trip someone now, why can't I trip someone else six seconds later.  And I can probably get behind this criticism a lot better.  It's hard to justify, if you insist that every power is an actual technique that the fighter is attempting to do.I think it's fixable though.  Essentials, for example, gives us martial characters with no Dailies.  Encounter powers don't seem to be a huge issue, or at least, not as much of an issue, so, it's certainly a problem that can be resolved.  The solution here is to simply make sure that the option of having martial characters that do not use daily effects is available out of the gate.The problem is, earlier edition combat mechanics don't include a lot of the elements that are in 4e combat.  The focus on movement, for example.  Not that I'm saying earlier edition combats were static, but, rather, they are a lot less mobile than a 4e combat.  Mobility just isn't such a big deal in earlier editions.I'm not sure how you could take, say, 2ed combat mechanics and make them about mobility.  The goal here, should always be to find mechanics that can satisfy the broadest approach possible.  3e multiclass mechanics are more versatile than any other edition's multiclassing mechanics.  You can adapt 3e multiclassing to any edition without a lot of work - Gestalt rules for AD&D, and Substitution levels for 4e.  Thus, I'd prefer to see 3e multiclassing rules in 5e.4e AEDU rules are more versatile than other combat mechanics.  Thus, I'd prefer to see them in 5e than, say, Vancian casting.  Unfortunately, for me, I'm going to get over ruled on this one, but, I predict that the Vancian casting we get will look a LOT like 4e wizards.  Maybe more dailies, less encounters, but, we'll see.</blockquote>

Verification