Quote from: jadrax;545888If they are used to 4th edition skill challenges, I can totally understand why they would adopt that mind set, because failing is twice as bad as succeeding is good.

Which is one of the most broken things about that system.

One of the things I "loved" about 4E is that 90% of the things they did to fix "problems" actually made those problems even worse. In many cases, they actually created the problems that they claimed to be fixing (despite the fact that those problems didn't actually exist in previous editions).

Quote from: B.T.;545939To briefly put on my new school hat, the whole "we can't let fighters have powers because we want combat to be creative" feels very much like pointless grognardery to me.  The wizard has a selection of predefined spells to use in combat and no one bats an eye at that, but suggesting the fighter should have an attack that does additional damage once per encounter results in rage.

The problem is not that fighters get special abilities. It's that 4E-style fighter abilities tend to:

(a) Be dissociated mechanics
(b) Require characters to have a special ability in order to attempt an action that any character should be able to attempt

The wizard's traditional spells, on the other hand, generally DON'T fall into those traps.

There are several ways that you could design fighter abilities that wouldn't fall into those traps. And I'd enthusiastically support it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230One of the things I "loved" about 4E is that 90% of the things they did to fix "problems" actually made those problems even worse. In many cases, they actually created the problems that they claimed to be fixing (despite the fact that those problems didn't actually exist in previous editions).

One of the things I disliked about 4e was all the conditions placed on things.  Like marking.  Yeesh, hadn't they declared that they wanted people to have to keep track of even fewer things that edition?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230There are several ways that you could design fighter abilities that wouldn't fall into those traps. And I'd enthusiastically support it.

For the curious what would some of these be?

Quote from: Mistwell;546234One of the things I disliked about 4e was all the conditions placed on things.  Like marking.  Yeesh, hadn't they declared that they wanted people to have to keep track of even fewer things that edition?

Yup. That's another key example of the "in order to do X, we're going to do not-X" methodology that has inexplicably plagued WotC for the past half decade.

It's also something I talked about when I playtested 4th Edition. The complexity of a 1st level combat in 4th Edition was equivalent to a mid-to-high level 3E combat. And that's exactly the opposite of what they claimed they were trying to do.

Quote from: Marleycat;546250For the curious what would some of these be?

Well, it depends on what direction you want to take.

Personally, I'd be OK with embracing a variety of "arcane fighter" packages: Fighters with arcane tattoos or totem rituals or mystic weapon katas.

Alternatively: Let the fighter be much, much better and/or let them do a lot more things compared to other classes in combat. The Cleave feats from 3E are an excellent example of that: Anybody can chop down one guy and then immediately try to attack somebody else, but the guy with the Cleave feat is so much better at switching targets that they get an extra attack (or attacks) as a result.

These feed together nicely, by the way. For example, say you have a feint mechanic that allows you to sacrifice one of your attacks to gain a +4 bonus to all of your attacks until the end of your next turn. Anybody can do that (and benefit from it), but if the fighter is the only guy who gets multiple attacks per round then it's fucking epic for him. Toss in an ability where they can double the bonus from feinting (because they're so damn good at it) and suddenly you've got Errol Flynn just flat-out embarrassing entire crowds of opponents.

I asked because I was thinking along those lines. Also something like stances or maneuvers. Which the latter seems exactly what you're describing.

Quote from: gleichman;546175Just know that understand or not, you're likely to see it until traditional war-game inspired RPGs disappear from the hobby. For you, that's a bright side- it shouldn;t take much longer at least from boards like this one.

Wow, really?  Because your combat rules, by your own admission, are a full on Asperger's wet dream, while the 'role-playing' is high octane "Mother-may-I", again, by your own admission.

It's like you are arguing against your own game designs.

Gleichman's brand of tactical game play has fuck all to do with actual wargaming.

If you guys could just quit quoting him I could be in ignorant bliss. Seriously why feed the troll? He hasn't said anything new in days.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;546230The problem is not that fighters get special abilities. It's that 4E-style fighter abilities tend to:

(a) Be dissociated mechanics
(b) Require characters to have a special ability in order to attempt an action that any character should be able to attempt
.

I very much agree with this.  On TBP, I got into an argument over the same thing, using a basketball analogy.

My argument was, if Kobe Bryant can dunk the ball whenever the scenario presents an opportunity (like not being mugged, open path the basket, etc), then why is he being limited to 1 dunk per game (like 1 per encounter)

The counter argument that was being repeated to me was that the power only guarantees a dunk, and Kobe doesn't make that choice, but the player chooses when that attempt is guaranteed.

That's all well and good, but they kept missing the point: If he has the ability and knowledge to do it, and the scenario presents itself, how come he can't do another dunk?  That question was never answered because 4anatics can't answer it because it makes no sense to have that arbitrary limitation.

Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

Quote from: Peregrin;546424Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

Yeah, unfortunately the system doesn't really mirror that particularly well. Although it is something to keep in your back pocket in games that encourage stunts.

Quote from: jadrax;546429Yeah, unfortunately the system doesn't really mirror that particularly well. Although it is something to keep in your back pocket in games that encourage stunts.

Well, you could do fatigue/penalties towards special actions that are used in sequence or during the same encounter, but that would probably get really fiddly really fast rather than just saying "You can do this once effectively in X period of game time."

e:
I do have my own problems with the 4e power format, but it has more to do with game/fiction elements being influenced by mechanics rather than the mechanics being associated with my character's POV.  And really, I just don't like the format from an aesthetic standpoint, either.

Quote from: Peregrin;546424Well, if you're a trained fighter, repeating certain maneuvers is usually to be avoided if you want to keep your opponent on their toes.

But what if some are SoD's like high level spells?

Quote from: Mistwell;546227I just wanted to take this moment and agree with Jeff.  Gleichman, you're a complete tool.

Yes, it's also the last time in our lives that Venus will appear to cross the sun, from our perspective on Earth.  

I felt it was appropriate to celebrate this fairly unique event by pointing out agreement between Jeff and I .

Quote from: jadrax;546228It's going to be fun watch Jeff explain how he disagrees with you.

Obviously, Mistwell knows genius when he sees it.

Or he is trying to get me to let my guard down.

One of the two....

Quote from: jeff37923;546483Obviously, Mistwell knows genius when he sees it.

Or he is trying to get me to let my guard down.

One of the two....

It's an obvious case of "white knighting".

Or it's a case of even a broken clock is right twice a day ....