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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5361809" data-attributes="member: 82106">There are issues that it solves, but also issues that it creates. I don't really get what in your point 3 is 'arbitrary' about page 42 now. Any normal attack bonuses etc can apply to an improvised attack. Normal damage bonuses can apply as well. Both types of bonuses by default DO apply. The DCs are not generally arbitrary. They are usually derived either from attributes/skills/defenses of the target and/or simply based on the situation like other skill or ability checks. I don't know anything arbitrary in the 4e DC system beyond all DCs are ultimately decided by the DM. However since all defenses are also ultimately decided by the DM this actually doesn't mean too much. "Ad Hoc Powers" in any case have all the issues of actual powers. The players will inevitably pick up on a few options that work well for their character and primarily lean on them. They will tend to pick options that optimize them as well, just like players do now with powers. You will have even greater decision paralysis and if your system of deciding what effects they have is thorough enough you will really basically just have a game where players and the DM have to collaboratively write the powers they're going to use. I suspect that would create a lack of focus with many classes. Overall I don't know how well it would work. I mean there are games that sort of do that now, but with 4e's tactical focus I think you might well just end up with "ZOMG I have infinite tactical choices, brain melt, swing sword" a lot. It will probably work OK with some groups, but I'm skeptical going that far is actually an improvement on the whole.I think there are things that could be improved. I think Essentials actually hints at a lot of them, but it is still strapped to the existing game and you aren't going to make a lot of those improvements without changing things in incompatible ways. Even if the rules TECHNICALLY stay almost the same just adopting a structure for character classes that is enough different from the existing one to do the job would make it unplayable with existing material.Essentials though does do some things. Cutting back on the overall number of powers isn't bad. Frankly though I'd have ditched encounter stuff vs daily stuff like the martial classes do. Make the difference between what you can do all the time and your plot coupon snazzy stuff more stark. Essentials also does draw its classes more distinctly. A lot of the differences between and mechanical underpinnings of 4e classes are pretty subtle. The classes are NOT "all the same" as some critics would like to think, but still a lot of things don't just jump out at you or are a bunch of small advantages that work synergistically together. E-classes tend to be more obvious, which is good. Less powers does reduce the number of effects in play too, which is good. Honestly though, if I were starting over with designing 4e I'd have just had a lot less individual powers, made them better designed and more distinct, not used very many effects that needed tracking, cut back a lot on the number of feats, and really that is about it. Heck, you could rejigger some of the numbers (dump ability score boosts for instance, etc) but that's just icing on the cake. Problem is you can't really do much of that and still play 4e. And that is sort of ultimately the problem with all discussions that go down this road. I'm sure I could design the mechanics for a decent game along those lines. Except I really want to PLAY, not write! I still say though that the 4e classes are more thematically and conceptually flexible and I really like that about them. Whatever Essentials is, mostly I think it is the devs sitting around thinking "gosh we could do so much better with a second cut at this system." Only it is going to be what, 5 more years probably before they have ANY chance of getting to really do it.</blockquote>

Verification