Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="R_kajdi" data-source="post: 4277054" data-attributes="member: 24709">See, I'm not really all that convinced that's what's going on here. The problems I see are thus:1. You still have the gear dependancy that everyone thought was dumb in 3rd edition. Scale things slightly more linearly, and you can completely remove the +s from items (special effects only) which makes magic more about weird effects than a pile of plusses.2. You severely punish high level characters who don't go against the more limited defences instead of AC. If this is not a problem at 1st level, why alter it for upper levels. This leads into my next point--3. You still have a "sweet spot", just like last edition. D&D 4E was almost an unmitigated success to me because at first it looked like the sweet spot extended over all the levels. If you liked play at 1st level, 30th level was basically the same with higher numbers. As it is now the game changes over levels, and I can't see that as a good thing. 4. This punishes characters who aren't strict specialists, which was a dumb issue in 3rd edition, and unfortunately still is around. Because you have to churn so hard to almost keep up, it's very hard to have a second area of competence at higher levels. You're pretty well stuck doing your one trick. A smarter move would have been to reduce the gap between competance and average ability by slowing down the gap between monster AC and level based bonuses, while also dropping the last few top end specializations into each area (maybe only have weapons go up to +3 or +4, and drop the last top +1s from the paths for specialization) With that, you'd see more well rounded characters, instead of characters who do one trick really, really well.    Maybe part of this is that I have a different idea of a top end design goal than D&D's designers themselves, but it really does seem like the game breaks for certain character types at the top levels still. Staying in the heroic and low paragon tiers, this gap should be minimized, so that you aren't punishing people for not playing super-specialists or the "wrong" character type. I see absolutely no reason why a character concept should not be equally viable at every character level.</blockquote>

Verification