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: 5301778" data-attributes="member: 30678">Oh, I totally agree with 3E high-level play being very, very complex -- however, not so much on the tactical side per se. As you said, it mostly came down to crunching numbers with the wide range of feats and prestige classes, but I didn't see it affecting tactical depth; instead, most optimized PCs were really "one-trick ponies" who relied on the same actions round after round. In 3E, I think the complexity in tactical choices had more to do with spellcasters (and spells in general). For the DM this meant that he had to know what the PC spellcasters were capable of doing and adjust his/her tactics accordingly; likewise, he had to know all the spells and spell-like abilities monsters had at their disposal, which could be a real headache at high levels.4E has none of that; instead, every player must know his powers inside out, and how these powers interact with other PCs. For example, I might easily mess up by pulling a monster to melee, when I should have actually used a power that would push it so that the wizard could use some close blast power. Or I should have marked a minion that is whittling down the wizard's HPs at an alarming rate . And so on (I think you get my point). Now, this sort of stuff used to be more relevant to spellcasters, but now every PC has to think of the "group synergy" (i.e. "Which of my powers will be most useful to group in this particular situation?") and it can very easily lead to "power paralysis". I've even seen some people badmouthing less tactically-inclined players for playing "stupidly". For the DM this also means he that he/she must create balanced encounters that challenge the players; although 4E provides a lot of tools for this, not all of us can easily juggle the hazards, terrain effects and "synergy" effects from monster roles and powers. Running a typical 4E combat would be a nightmare for me, because I don't just need to try to use tactics to the best of my ability; I also need to keep track of marks, effects, zones and whatnot. It's just too tactical for me.I still think 4E does a lot "right"; it's just the heavily emphasized tactical depth that's keeping me away from it. And that is why I hope 'Essentials' product line will introduce less complex combat rules and classes.Now that PF RPG has introduced a new array of options with APG, I'm starting to feel the same with PF NPCs; there's just so many new choices, and some of them are even "overlapping" (e.g. a feat copies an effect that archetypes X and Y already offer at levels 5 and 9, respectively). The end result is that I don't feel I can manage all the fiddly details, and I wish the designers would have created a separate subsystem for handling NPCs.I absolutely encourage creativity, within reasonable limits (no iron golem PCs in my campaigns, for example) and I didn't mean that the rules *restrict* a player's control over narration. However, apart from the player being able to describe his actions, and say when he uses certain (encounter and daily) powers, there's nothing in the rules that would mechanically enable a player to seize control of the narrative in the same way it's hardwired into many Indie RPGs. I personally wouldn't probably ever interfere in the way a player described a power taking place in the story, unless I felt it's a bit too "anime-ish" or "supernatural" (for a martial PC, that is).</blockquote>

Verification