Community

I still do not like the skill die, but if they did a static value (average) versus dice version in the core, then both would be available for use. I don't see how looking at a character sheet is more complicated then remembering a die. The biggest problem with any type of dice roll in the game is remembering what needs to be rolled, including the appropriate size dice, or modifiers, and whether they all stack. So keeping the dice needed for a specific roll, or the amount of modifiers available to a minimum is more important.

I still am not satisfied with the concept of classes may specialize in certain skills by ability, like a fighter using strength die, a rogue dexterity die, or a wizard intelligence die. That limits the character concept. I would rather see areas of knowledge in the game, where the character decides what they want to be good at. Then depending on the maneuvers, skill trick, or spells, the class may be able to add something too it. This would allow them to represent an area of knowledge like deception that could cover charm, intimidate, fast talk, etc.

I do agree on the approach of general ability rolls and then picking areas of expertise which grants the DM more flexibiltiy. But I am not satisfied with any of the current presentations.

I am surprised there has not been an uproar in reference to the skill trick taunt, as it is just like come and get it from 4E. But I am more offended it seems appropriate for a rogue and not a fighter. If they continue avoid fighers getting interesting things like dedicated type of skills specialties, and do not invoke it through maneuvers or somethign similar I will be very dissapointed.

The approach that is being considered for types of weapons versus martial damage dice has promise, as long as the weapon can do more for a martial character versus a caster. They did mention maneuvers adding more choices, and other classes may gain them through multi-classing or feats. I think this will also be a good thing to allow martials characters to gain access to rituals using mulit-classing or feats.

They haven't nailed down how each class will handle the narrative side of the game, and usually spells can do more than natural ability. I think their main focus should be duration and scope, so a charm spell may last longer, but requires concentration, while a fighter or rogue could charm a NPC as well, while a bard can charm an entire audience. Each has a different duration and scope. 

There were some comments made on symetry of rules or classes, versus creating a unique game experience for each character or class. But that still does not mean that some classes should be sidelined in reference to out of combat scenarios. This could be addressed via areas of knowledge, and then determine how it may be influenced by an ability checks, skill rolls, skill tricks, maneuvers, or spells. Even if the choices are not equal, and one class is better in specific situations, it would include the fighter, versus being relegated to strength based abilities.

Jan 13, 2013 -- 9:19AM, LawfulNifty wrote:

The issue I had with Come and Get It was that it was Strength-based. It just never seemed right that you could lure enemies toward you because of how strong you were.

At its basic come and get it is a fantasy* version of an invitation a fencing move which involves leaving an opening, the idea is the false opening pulls an enemy in to attacking where and when you are most ready to retaliate... if it works perfectly they loose there attack and you gain an extra.
As far as what attribute it is based on anything but trivial activity is based on multiple attributes and D&D sacrefices that for playability but here is an example.

Come and Get it (Ye old forceful grab technique): He times this move for when enemies seem poised to move  he leaps out and grabs the nearest enemy and pulls them back to where he was - this initial enemy get's something analogous to an opportunity attack but  momentarily acts as a sort of block vs ranged attacks from his allies but while doing this he leaves himself open to a nearby attacker.

*The trick being useable vs multiple enemies is probably its most fantastical element

I guess Mike's going to have to amend his Super Bowl predictions.