Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cmbarona" data-source="post: 4991265" data-attributes="member: 71281">My main problems are that they didn't go far enough with some of the new edition's features:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Balance. V-shaped classes, Wizard's spellbook, implements not working like weapons, etc. I rather like the fact that classes' baselines are similar enough that their distinctions are both easy to parse out and easy to adapt to new concepts. As a specific example, I would love it if implements worked exactly like weapons. Newbie player Bob figures out how a Fighter works. Bob the Fighter dies. Bob now wants to make Bob the Wizard. Had balance been an even stronger focus, he could simply look at the Wizard's implements and say, &quot;Oh! These work just like weapons!&quot; Alas... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Consistent terminology. As has been mentioned before, this is the same company who makes Magic: The Gathering. When I first took a look at the powers, they struck me as a very similar concept. I liked that. As long as I understand a core of mechanics, I can apply that understanding to any number of powers with little effort. For the most part, this works. However, there is a handful of corner cases where the mechanics get wonky. I fear that this number will increase.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Internal math. There have been enough threads about this that I would hope an article would at some point address the Expertise feats, etc. On a subtopic of this, I think Masterwork armor should have had a separate Masterwork bonus. This would make things just plain less confusing for new players.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Skill challenges are a strange mechanic.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Disease tracks are an awesome mechanic that is underused. See point 4.</li>
</ol></blockquote>

[QUOTE="cmbarona, post: 4991265, member: 71281"] My main problems are that they didn't go far enough with some of the new edition's features: [LIST=1] [*]Balance. V-shaped classes, Wizard's spellbook, implements not working like weapons, etc. I rather like the fact that classes' baselines are similar enough that their distinctions are both easy to parse out and easy to adapt to new concepts. As a specific example, I would love it if implements worked exactly like weapons. Newbie player Bob figures out how a Fighter works. Bob the Fighter dies. Bob now wants to make Bob the Wizard. Had balance been an even stronger focus, he could simply look at the Wizard's implements and say, "Oh! These work just like weapons!" Alas... :( [*]Consistent terminology. As has been mentioned before, this is the same company who makes Magic: The Gathering. When I first took a look at the powers, they struck me as a very similar concept. I liked that. As long as I understand a core of mechanics, I can apply that understanding to any number of powers with little effort. For the most part, this works. However, there is a handful of corner cases where the mechanics get wonky. I fear that this number will increase. [*]Internal math. There have been enough threads about this that I would hope an article would at some point address the Expertise feats, etc. On a subtopic of this, I think Masterwork armor should have had a separate Masterwork bonus. This would make things just plain less confusing for new players. [*]Skill challenges are a strange mechanic. [*]Disease tracks are an awesome mechanic that is underused. See point 4. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification