General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Of cource I only say this becussse fighter sound more like a Psi controler... (I kid I kid)
I saw this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taralan
I really like the fact that they have finaly broken the power structure for the psion. It helps answer one of the most common complaints about 4e, i.e. that all the class feel the same.
Too bad they did not venture earlier in that area. I can see Wizards as having a few at wills, no encounters and almost all dailies and the reverse for fighters (mostly at wills and perhaps no daily) to really bring back the flavor of the earlier edition for these classes.
I have herd the suggestion before martial powers should have had at will heavy and arcane should have been daily heavy...
No imagin fighter/rouge/ranger/and warlord as a simalar set up
choose at wills with augments
choose encounters
no dailies (except utilities)
you get daily points that allow you to go beyond normal limits...they argument your at wills to dailies... adrenalin points...mind over body points...ok I suck at nameing things...
Arcane classes split.. Wizard, Swordmage, and sorcerer
choose 1 at will, no encounters, 2 dailys...able to augment at will up to encounter...
Warlock, Bard, artaficer
2 at wills, 2 encounters...no dailies, power points daily the let them augment there encounters up to dailies...
ok, my arcane thing needs work...but I think the martial one would stop the dumb "Everyone uses magic" thing...what do you guys think??/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
I think this was a potentially fine way to go at the start of the system. Now it would be much harder to incorporate but a nice area for houserule territory.
This is one of the reasons I was saddened the designers up front said no 4.5. For all the complaining about 3.5, it allowed the designers the ability to retool all of the core assumptions with a new set of guidelines they had learned over years of playtesting.
With 4e for example, if after a year or two of trying new classes and new power mechanics, everyone suddenly realizes they wish martial classes had been X, arcane Y, etc...that's not something you can just errata...it requires a pretty substantial alteration (ie 4.5) to see happen.
I think this was a potentially fine way to go at the start of the system. Now it would be much harder to incorporate but a nice area for houserule territory.
This is one of the reasons I was saddened the designers up front said no 4.5. For all the complaining about 3.5, it allowed the designers the ability to retool all of the core assumptions with a new set of guidelines they had learned over years of playtesting.
With 4e for example, if after a year or two of trying new classes and new power mechanics, everyone suddenly realizes they wish martial classes had been X, arcane Y, etc...that's not something you can just errata...it requires a pretty substantial alteration (ie 4.5) to see happen.
Stalk, I completely agree with you. I've long been certain that we will see a revision of 4E, but that it won't be marketed as "4.5". (The ".5" thing was a stupid name, IMHO.) I believe in a revision because it would extend the lifespan of this awesome system, and because it will allow us to see more campaign setting in 4E. I also like to point out that every single edition of D&D thus far (AFAIK) has seen a revision. If ever you decide to undertake such a revision, I'm on board -- I have some ideas of my one, of course. (Plus, I hope they'll use Obsidian as the model for the revised skill challenge system!)
As for the Martial power source, I don't mind how it is now, but I agree that something similar to the Augmentation system would be a cool way to represent a lot of Exploits, especially for the Fighter.
I think this was a potentially fine way to go at the start of the system. Now it would be much harder to incorporate but a nice area for houserule territory.
This is one of the reasons I was saddened the designers up front said no 4.5. For all the complaining about 3.5, it allowed the designers the ability to retool all of the core assumptions with a new set of guidelines they had learned over years of playtesting.
With 4e for example, if after a year or two of trying new classes and new power mechanics, everyone suddenly realizes they wish martial classes had been X, arcane Y, etc...that's not something you can just errata...it requires a pretty substantial alteration (ie 4.5) to see happen.
Well, 4e is pretty modular. You could change out how some classes work without needing to rework the entire system. I could see a 4e Unearthed Arcana doing exactly that. Actually, I could see a splat for each power source (Unearthed Martial, Unearthed Primal, etc) that reworked the same classes but with more unique takes on the power system.
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
Actually, I could see a splat for each power source (Unearthed Martial, Unearthed Primal, etc) that reworked the same classes but with more unique takes on the power system.
Yeah, I think that's the way to go. New classes (or new versions of old classes) that take advantage of the expanded rules options, but not flat-out replacements. Lots of people are happy with the system as-is; there's no sense in taking away toys they've already got.
__________________ Ari Marmell
aka
Mouseferatu
--Rodent of the Dark
They could easily do the same they did with 3.5 when they released the Bo9S.
I, for one, welcome the introduction of new subsystems and greater differentiation between power sources.
I think it would be a good simplification for the Classes.
When I thought about making a Microlight 4E that should have approximately the same damage and effects of the full version to stay compatible, I thought about giving them only 1 or 2 at-wills that they could boost to make encounter and daily effects/damage.
But I think it's too early to say how this structure would effect gameplay ... let it rest a month or two when the psion got played and lets see how the reactions are.
The thing is the more we move into the system, the better everything gets at least as far as I am concerned. Many argue that the PHB2 classes are simply better designed, and so are the MM2 monsters. Likely the PHB3 and MM3 will be the same. It is a simple fact that every gaming system can be improved by being exposed to gamers and playtesting can never be enough and can at best iron out some bugs. In 4 years from release, the designers will know far more about what their system can do and handle than they can now. People compare 4E to WoW often and I have one thing to say about WoW, it constantly evolves and intergrates player comments and observations. 4E cannot do that without either a revision or a series of advanced books like Arcana Unearthed.
Yeah, I think that's the way to go. New classes (or new versions of old classes) that take advantage of the expanded rules options, but not flat-out replacements. Lots of people are happy with the system as-is; there's no sense in taking away toys they've already got.
yes, infact maybe I wasn't clear, I ment this to just be in theory...I don't want my fighter pwers taken away...but I also thin had it been doen this way, or at some point later in D&D's life time, we might see such thing intergrated into later edtioins...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nymrohd
The thing is the more we move into the system, the better everything gets at least as far as I am concerned. Many argue that the PHB2 classes are simply better designed, and so are the MM2 monsters. Likely the PHB3 and MM3 will be the same. It is a simple fact that every gaming system can be improved by being exposed to gamers and playtesting can never be enough and can at best iron out some bugs. In 4 years from release, the designers will know far more about what their system can do and handle than they can now. People compare 4E to WoW often and I have one thing to say about WoW, it constantly evolves and intergrates player comments and observations. 4E cannot do that without either a revision or a series of advanced books like Arcana Unearthed.
I think we need to compair D&D to wow as a whole...D&D is and mostly has been (maybe not at the end of 2e) a living game, alwasy updateing...basic D&D is awsome, so is 1e, 2e, and 3e...you can even see the changes if you lay those systems togather...
lets look at attack rolls for instance:
basic amd 1e: Here is a chart
2e: here is the math instead of the chart 3e here is eaiser math/ more intuitve math
but it was all roll d20 add bonuse higher is better...
4e was a big leap, and I think it was the most drastic (for good or ill lets leave that to another thread...) change. SO now as it continues to grow we will see more. Wow is in the aquivlant of 4th or 5th or 6th edtion...becuse it evolves
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
(I kid I kid)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
