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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5928335" data-attributes="member: 51942">So, discussion:The Sorcerer:Actually, I quite liked the 3.5 sorcerer.  Sure, he was a little weak compared to the wizard, and sure, he was essentially a wizard with variant spellcasting, but spell selection really mattered so despite being superficially similar, in play they'd often differ quite a bit.They're easier to play, require only very simple resource tracking, and they don't run out of spells quite as quickly.  By contrast, I didn't like the 4e sorcerer much - he just felt like a blaster.The Fighter:As to the 4e fighter, I love him and have played several.  So I totally agree with you.  Well, not quite...I also believe that the 4e fighter isn't a good model for what a default fighter should be.  He's way, way too complicated; and many of his tricks, while they provide intellectually stimulating tactical combat, make no sense whatsoever. (Oh, and marking is really, really cheesy - though fortunately essentials improved that).  So I'd like a class inspired by the 4e fighter, but I don't want to be forced into that complexity either. Call the 4e fighter a duelist, or a swordsage in ToB tradition or whatever, and if he's got a few moves that don't make sense (the tradition example being Come and Get It) then don't be afraid to label them supernatural rather than pretend this guy's completely normal and mundane.  But keep the normal fighter a little simpler - maybe many basic tricks and lots of power, but no martial artist.Solos:I think solo's are bad for the game.  The idea was good - if you're going to have a solo monster, shouldn't he be capable to engage a whole party? - but the mechanics just don't fit most of the creatures that ended up getting that label.  There's been this huge discussion about how to "fix" solos which ended up focusing on the mechanics, but I think the reasons solos had issues are intrinsic to what they are.  If you're fighting a big ogre and a flask of acid blinds him, he's in huge trouble.  You can come up with lots of mechanics that mechanically mitigate whatever the PC's throw at him, but in the end, it's ludicrous - how is this ogre doing all that, and how can this be an ogre at all?  And if he can do it, why can't all the others, or even some of them? Some of the newer 4e solo's have 2 turns; how are they moving so much faster than anyone else like them?I never again want a monster design that looks like they wanted to make a solo and then retrospectively decided how they were going to pour that design decision into that poor critters body.  It's like an alien invasion or something - looks like an ogre, smells like an ogre, but damn the body-snatchers got him because it sure doesn't act like an ogre.Which isn't to say that some creatures can't be solos - but I'd like em to gain that distinction through the fluff.  If a creature has abilities that sounds like he can shrug of almost anything and keep lots of people busy, then that's a creature that is a solo - not a transparent, jarring obvious metagame tool.  That's going to mean we'll see a few fewer solos or that some solo's aren't significant threats, but that's just fine.</blockquote>

Verification