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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4070660" data-attributes="member: 30678">Yes, that's what I'm talking about. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> Seriously, although it sounds ridiculous, I think players will be paying a lot of attention to any such "telltale" signs to determine a BBEG's level and powers. Based on what I've seen so far, in 4E it seems to be pretty easy to fall into meta-gaming and I wonder if it will have much more in common with strategic boardgames than RPGs (yes, tactical aspects of the game do not actually prevent you from role-playing, but IMO they don't really encourage "immersion" either -- quite the opposite, in fact).EDIT: I am also concerned about layers of complexity being added to combat to make it more tactical in nature. Apparently position and movement play a much larger role than in 3E, and all the examples of class abilities/powers I have seen (those of Paladin and Rogue) seem to indicate combat-related actions have become more complex although some rolls have been removed from the system and crits and damage have been "toned down" to reduce PC deaths. And let's not forget that the devs have stated that they also wanted to remove *math* from crits (and combat in general). Well, since *most* combat abilities (which are used probably more often than crits happen, right?) seem to inflict 2 X Weapon Damage + Stat Modifier anyway, I'm a bit baffled how this is different from occasionally calculating 2 X [ Weapon Damage + STR Modifier]? Or that magical weapons and "High Crit"-weapons still add dice to the roll?   I like randomness and unpredictability in combat, because it I need my moments of ultimate triumph and utter despair. I want to have the possibility to slay a dragon with a lucky crit that inflicts 50+ damage -- and wouldn't it feel even *more* satisfying and special and *heroic*, if you were down to your last HPs? And now if I crit -- unless I'm using some kind of "combat ability" -- I have no way of slaying it (not even a chance, no matter how marginal) with a single stroke? It may make for a more *balanced* combat, but I don't see these new and awesome "combat abilities" or action points ever making up for the kind of excitement I'm talking about. 4E may be more "fun" to people who think that 3E combat is "too random" or "too chaotic" or outright unbalanced, but does it offer the same kind of "rush" I've felt in 3E? All I'm seeing so far is how they've removed a lot of the "danger factor", which will signal to me that they've removed the emotional "peaks" from the system (e.g. no 'save-or-die'-traps or abilities or spells, no level/ability score loss, action points, "healing surges", etcetera). I'm not saying that you can't have those moments of triumphs or feel "heroic" in 4E, but I'm quite certain that I'd be feeling I'm missing something in the game. If I were more into "cinematic" action (a la 'Princess Bride' or 'Indiana Jones') and preferred a less-random "performance rate" (i.e. combat effectiveness), I might be excited. At least until I got to play my third or fourth Rogue from the "Clone Factory" (TM). I wonder if 5E will introduce static attacks and damage and initiative to remove *all* randomness and "unfairness" from combat?  It's also my subjective opinion that "builds" and character optimization/maxing will still exist in 4E, but it will just be different in nature. In 3E, you concentrated on optimizing your *character*, and I'm not denying that there are a lot of "broken" and wacky builds in 3E. I'm also not suspecting that in 4E the character classes will be more "in balance" with each other. However, as the focus of the abilities are becoming more about "group synergy", I have a gut feeling that there will be "broken" ability/talent/feat combos between the classes. In that sense I see a 4E group becoming sort of like a *DDM warband* -- a player might say to another: "If you're playing a Rogue and you go for 'Storm of Slashes', I'm gonna create a Paladin who will have 'Overwhelming Light Burst' and 'Binding Smite'. If Bob creates a Warlock with Fiendish Pact, I've got a list of powers he should take to combo with our powers...". IMO this sort of "group synergy" in combat was much harder to achieve in 3E (and certainly not without spending your precious Feats).   Now, it's easy to say that "you can houserule anything that you don't like in 4E", but why couldn't you do that in 3E if you felt something was "broken"? Maybe it felt somehow "unsatisfying" or even irritating? Maybe your solution felt "out-of-sync" with the rest of the system? Or you didn't like extra work to make the system, as a whole, to work for your group? If so, please don't use this argument.</blockquote>

Verification