|
6 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 3:24AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
Yes. It's a good mechanic, with lots of depth. Simple at its core, yet expandably complex. In short, it does everything Next is trying to do.
This question is like asking whether non-Wizards should get spells. The answer is yes, of course, but tuned to their own particular classes.
Yes, Fighters should get their own class distinctiveness. But they can do it in the same way that Wizards get their class distinctiveness, despite the fact that other classes also cast spells.
Yep. Other classes than Wizard have always had spells-- these other classes (in older editions of D&D) just had fewer spells, and also had Other Things. Make it the same deal with Fighters and Maneuvers-- Fighters have the most access to Maneuvers, while a Monk has Ki etc, Paladin has Smite etc, and so on.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 5:09AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
Yes, but maybe not all martial classes, but maybe that will work... I am still very torn on this, and I love the mechanic...
What I really want to see is the classes differentiated substantially both within and outside the XD. Bring back some things as class features and some things as maneuvers. The Monk's Ki was a good start towards this, but they can do much better. Honestly, I'll wait and see the direction that it heads, and then make my decision, one thing that I will not from the DM's perspective - allthough the Monk, Fighter and Rogue all used XD, they all felt very different in play. So from what I can tell, people are complaining more about the homogenity of the mechanic rather than the resulting homogenity of the classes - (which to me, isn't actually a result).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 5:58AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
As opposed to previous editions where all martial classes had the option to "hit it" or "hit it again"? yeah, that's kind of hypocritical there.
...hahaha...how am I in any way being hypocritical (another one, this should be good...)?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 22, 2012 - 11:12AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2003
|
I for one am very much for maneuvers being availabel to all martial classes (I am not sure about non-martial classes at this point). One thing that really bothered me about 4e powers was the arbitrary exclusivity of them. Only a fighter could cleave, for example, even if it made sense for your non-fighter to do so, because that's the way the game system was set up. You would have classes with powers that could do very similar things (too similar, in many cases) but had to be unique just because that system was not designed to have power overlap.
To me, it is much more natural and realistic to have a list of universal maneuvers that all classes that have any martial ability can pull from, with some restrictions from each class list.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 8:26PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
If non-fighters get them, then fighters need something else to make them distinctive instead of just being the "newbie class". It's like they dropped in this cool mechanic, and then looked back at it later and totally forgot why they had put it in.
Wotc doesnt do well when they tack stuff on like that. The only reason to add something to the fighter class if it works, its creative, makes some kind of sense, and is fun. IMO there should be hundreds and hundreds or thousands of arcane spells sense mages of relative power can create spells. Im all for spells like Mtg cards; rare plentiful etc etc.
That doesnt mean other classes need thousands of abilities. You can foster creativity and thousands of possibilities. That should extend to every class even the class with thousands of spells to maybe chance upon. Thus that is why I create maneuvers for the mage. At will cantrips with vancian casting is basically a gun and gernades. At least it could be staff, darts, poison, crossbows and grenades lol. So the class gets kinda boring despite all those spells that they will never find anyway. In a sense its more mundane than the current fighter.
|
|
|