Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5343081" data-attributes="member: 22424">Agreed.What I think could use some toning down, though, is the multitude of options that allow players to push up the numbers.Adding new powers is cool, because it allows the character to do something new, which is potentially interesting. Adding a feat that pushes your attack modifier from +5 to +6 is rather less cool, though... you're just doing the same all stuff marginally better.And yet, if given the choice the player will probably choose the latter, as it's probably a better option all round.Indeed, specialisation of this type may have the perverse effect of reducing the net fun of the group. Firstly because the ultra-specialised character will be at a major disadvantage if forced to operate with anything other than his prime attack (yes, his own damn fault for building his character that way... but that doesn't stop him having less fun). Secondly, it means that in any scenario where one character is ultra-optimised, the rest of the group potentially won't be able to meaningfully contribute - they'll just be overshadowed by the other guy. Again, their fun is reduced.I'm not suggesting the game should eliminate all means of increasing the numbers, or do away with all specialisation, of course. That would be going too far. But reigning these in a bit, and even tying them down to a tightly limited and fixed set of such options, is probably no bad thing. And then have the character options (be they class features, talents, spells, or powers) allow the character to do new things, not just do the same things better.Don't care about psionics either way. However, the 4e approach does seem to have allowed them to be more balanced than they have been in the past, while still allowing them to be quite distinctive. (Some of this has come from stripping the Wizard of his "magic can do everything" capability, which is no bad thing.)Yep, I agree with all of this. Despite my problems with 4e, 3e and Pathfinder alike, I won't consider going back to an older edition precisely because of the lack of a universal mechanic.Again, agreed. Because of the "big jump" effect of gaining a level, different XP tables typically failed to balance characters. If you take a 2nd Edition Fighter and Mage at 1,999 XP, you'll see a certain disparity in power level. At 2,001 XP, the difference in power is vastly changed (because the Fighter is now 2nd level, while the Mage is still at 1st). Different XP tables for different classes littered similar oddities throughout the party's careers.Far better, IMO, to try to balance all classes at all levels, and thus make a character's level the simple shorthand of approximate power level.</blockquote>

Verification