Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 9224948" data-attributes="member: 786">To extend your cognitive gap example, one of the big problems I had with 4e was its class design. In particular, the fact that many of the classes (all?) had large overlaps in their mechanics, with little, if any, flavor changes between classes. The initial HP example was just one instance of it. For me, these instances were bad enough that at times it felt like I was reading the same class again. And again. That wasn't helped when I noticed that the repeat abilities occurred at the same point in the class progress, regardless of how well the ability might, or might not, fit into the/my supposed concept of the class. And while the division of abilities into their frequencies wasn't a bad bit of analysis, the presentation/mechanics of the dailies were so spell-like that when I read the wizard class, the decision to keep the spell-slot mechanic, instead of just folding the spells into the dailies directly, felt so contrived, that just reading it caused one of those cognitive gaps.Now, I had many, many, other problems with 4e, but your cognitive gap model popped up in ALL kinds of places. For that matter, thinking about it, the mismatches between my gameworld model and the implied gameworld model of recent D&amp;D/Pathfinder editions keeps popping up problems too. As example, I really, REALLY, .... don't understand why PF2e limits spell-based flight for a single person, for 1 hour, to 7th rank!I don't know if that counts as an example of your cognitive gap, but I think it's at least related.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GuardianLurker, post: 9224948, member: 786"] To extend your cognitive gap example, one of the big problems I had with 4e was its class design. In particular, the fact that many of the classes (all?) had large overlaps in their mechanics, with little, if any, flavor changes between classes. The initial HP example was just one instance of it. For me, these instances were bad enough that at times it felt like I was reading the same class again. And again. That wasn't helped when I noticed that the repeat abilities occurred at the same point in the class progress, regardless of how well the ability might, or might not, fit into the/my supposed concept of the class. And while the division of abilities into their frequencies wasn't a bad bit of analysis, the presentation/mechanics of the dailies were so spell-like that when I read the wizard class, the decision to keep the spell-slot mechanic, instead of just folding the spells into the dailies directly, felt so contrived, that just reading it caused one of those cognitive gaps. Now, I had many, many, other problems with 4e, but your cognitive gap model popped up in ALL kinds of places. For that matter, thinking about it, the mismatches between my gameworld model and the implied gameworld model of recent D&D/Pathfinder editions keeps popping up problems too. As example, I [I]really[/I], [I]REALLY[/I], .... don't understand why PF2e limits spell-based flight for a single person, for 1 hour, to 7th rank! I don't know if that counts as an example of your cognitive gap, but I think it's at least related. [/QUOTE]

Verification