4th edition: Not happy with the new direction.

[Scribble]

there's a simple way of preventing non combat powers being used in combat. Make them take 30 seconds to use.

Eh... Maybe? But look at all the grief/whining that caused with rituals?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think there is room in the game for non combat "powers."

The issue I see arising is the old I use some out of combat modeled power creatively during combat in a way that was unintended, and ends up wrecking all thoughts of balance in the game...

You want to reward the creative thinker- but you also don't want to let them destroy the game for everyone.

That is true! What happens is you have to end up designing a game that all backdoors have been taken into account.

 

[Scribble]

That is true! What happens is you have to end up designing a game that all backdoors have been taken into account.

Good luck with that... I've yet to see one.

 

[mudbunny]

That is true! What happens is you have to end up designing a game that all backdoors have been taken into account.

Why didn't you say that you were just looking for a perfect game with no errors or loopholes?

Granted, that is not at all realistic unless you want the game to take about 10 years or so to come out and cost a crapton of money.

 

[Phaezen]

Sounds like that is something that could be fixed.

I think another thing I don't like about 4th edition is most of your powers are only available during combat. I can understand when a class is designed around combat and combat would be where they see most of the action but not all classes are that way.

Not entirely true your powers are available at all times unless they have been used and you haven't had a short rest (encounter powers) or extended rest (daily powers)

It comes down to players being creative enough to think of uses for powers in non combat situations and for DMs being flexible enough to allow for players to use powers in non orthodox manners outside of combat.

As silly example maybe but one I could see coming up in play (Split the Tree):

The cult boss is making his escape, leaving the parties ranger with a difficult decision to make - his team mates are bound and hanging in 2 groups from the ceiling, being dragged towards a large pot of molten iron, he has enough time to save 1 group.

Closing his eyes and steadying his breath the ranger pulls 2 arrows from his quiver putting them to his bow, he opens his eyes and releases the arrows, watching with small satisfaction as the they head towards the ropes, neatly splitting them causing his party to plummet to the floor before they reach the molten iron.

Even though it was a tough shot to pull out, one that he almost never managed more than once a day the results were always worth the practice he put into it.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, mechanically, a class like the Fighter operates wildly differently from a class like the Psion. They are, in practice, almost nothing alike.

I didn't have time to refer to this thread for a while, so my apologies for stepping back several pages.

I think we may have a confusion of definition.

I would instead say that tactically they are almost nothing alike. A striker isn't a controller - the results of the use of their powers is drastically different. On that I'll agree.

But mechanically, they're the same. Same power structure, same mechanic for seeing if a power works. The results are different, but the root mechanic - the basic structure of how a power is built, and what a player does to use it - really is the same. That unification and simplification is supposed to be one of the selling points of the system, and is what allows them to balance various classes more easily and completely.

I mean, look back at 1e - the poster child for hodgepodge mechanics. Wizards and thieves used completely different mechanics. One used spells, another used a chart rolling percentile dice. That's what I call different mechanics. Psionics then had a completely different structure off on the side, which might be applied to any character. By comparison, 4e classes really do all use the same mechanics.

The issue at hand is that you can't please everyone - what is a selling point for one person is a drawback for another. Some folks like that similarity, as it means after playing one character, they don't have as great a learning curve when they play other classes. Other folks feel it renders the game kind of boring, without variety.

I, myself, do find the unified mechanics a little lackluster. Maybe bland is a good word for it. I tend to prefer systems where the mechanics you use add to the flavor, rather than remain neutral, even though varied structures inevitably leads to a system that's harder to balance and use. But, I don't think 4e is so dull that I think the system ought to be trashed - I'll play it as readily as any other system. But I recognize it as a place where they chose to make things easy, rather than interesting.

I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt were I not aware of his recent posting history.

That's ad hominem, though - referring to the person of the poster, rather than the content of the logic in front of you - which is itself pretty weak argument.

Nobody is asking you to give the benefit of the doubt. I am asking you not to actively dismiss real points he brings up even though you don't agree with his overall position or like his person. Truth can come from unexpected sources.

 

[shamsael]

I'm not sure if you played 2nd edition but back then there was a book called Skills and Powers and I thought it was awesome. It was essentially classless D&D.

Classless exvept for the part where you picked a character class which determined which features you were allowed to buy and at what cost.

 

[Dannager]

Is this put down necessary?

If the shoe fits. If I ask someone, "Why do you feel that X is the same as Y?" and their response is, "X is the same as Y because X is the same as Y," let's face it: I'm not going to have flattering things to say about how they participate in a discussion.

 

[Dannager]

I think you're shooting your own credibility with the "or whatever". Based on that, it doesn't look like you get what he wants at all.

The "or whatever" was a jab at his position, which seems to be whatever he feels like at any given moment. He complains about the new direction of 4e (i.e. Essentials) but then complains about things that are characteristic of the start of 4e that Essentials changed. And, since he's refused multiple times to provide any sort of clarification on his position, I have no choice but to respond based on what little information on his position I've already been given.

 

[Dannager]

When people have trouble comprehending something they usually try and turn it around to make it the other person's fault.

When people have trouble comprehending something because the other person has refused on multiple occasions to provide any concrete clarification on his position multiple times, it is his fault.