Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Haffrung Helleyes" data-source="post: 4058299" data-attributes="member: 1068">Lord Zardoz, That's an excellent summary of 3E weaknesses.&nbsp; I do have a few quibbles (I don't, for example, think that Undead are as powerful as you suggest) , but I essentially agree with you.I am not sure though that 4E will solve these problems.The main issues you identify, namely that the attack capabilty and defenses of the different PCs diverge as they level, is a consequence of D&amp;D's focus on specialization.IE, in D&amp;D, the party is supposed to succeed when PCs stick to their roles.&nbsp; Therefore, players choose PCs that specialize in such a way as to perform their roles optimally.&nbsp; The Wizard pumps his DCs rather than improving his attack ability or his AC, The fighter gets a flaming sword rather than improving his will save, and so on.&nbsp; Everyone maxes a few skills that define their character, and ignores all the others.The class abilities that accumulate reinforce this trend.4E fixes a few of these problems in simplistic ways (giving everyone a level-dependent static bonus to all their skills, so eventually all the PCs can make a DC15 climb check, for example) , but it remains a game where PCs are encouraged to stick to their roles, from what I can tell.&nbsp; They've even introduced formal language (Striker, Controller, Defender, etc) to define these roles.&nbsp; So I worry that , over time, the damage output of the Striker will diverge greatly, and the saves and AC of the Defender will do likewise.&nbsp; If skill resolution remains an important part of the game, DCs of tasks will scale in such a way that those class-dependent bonuses to skills are necessary for success.Ken</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Haffrung Helleyes, post: 4058299, member: 1068"] Lord Zardoz, That's an excellent summary of 3E weaknesses. I do have a few quibbles (I don't, for example, think that Undead are as powerful as you suggest) , but I essentially agree with you. I am not sure though that 4E will solve these problems. The main issues you identify, namely that the attack capabilty and defenses of the different PCs diverge as they level, is a consequence of D&D's focus on specialization. IE, in D&D, the party is supposed to succeed when PCs stick to their roles. Therefore, players choose PCs that specialize in such a way as to perform their roles optimally. The Wizard pumps his DCs rather than improving his attack ability or his AC, The fighter gets a flaming sword rather than improving his will save, and so on. Everyone maxes a few skills that define their character, and ignores all the others. The class abilities that accumulate reinforce this trend. 4E fixes a few of these problems in simplistic ways (giving everyone a level-dependent static bonus to all their skills, so eventually all the PCs can make a DC15 climb check, for example) , but it remains a game where PCs are encouraged to stick to their roles, from what I can tell. They've even introduced formal language (Striker, Controller, Defender, etc) to define these roles. So I worry that , over time, the damage output of the Striker will diverge greatly, and the saves and AC of the Defender will do likewise. If skill resolution remains an important part of the game, DCs of tasks will scale in such a way that those class-dependent bonuses to skills are necessary for success. Ken [/QUOTE]

Verification