Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 4189767" data-attributes="member: 29746">(Emphasis mine.) Irrelevant. I as the DM am the one who sees the simplification, and its negatives. Therefore I am the one turned off by it and will make the choice of whether or not to adopt the new system.Also, for PCs, I will note that &quot;tons&quot; of options that remain the same at all levels do not translate to real &quot;tons.&quot; 3.0 psionics featured powers that dealt absolute amounts of damage, so that every Concussion dealt exactly 3d6 damage, every time, no ifs ands or buts. To deal 5d6 damage with one manifestation, the character had to learn an entirely new power, Greater Concussion. This wisely gave way to the Augmentation system in Malhavoc's psionics stuff and later on 3.5E psionics, because designers and players alike recognized that a &quot;new&quot; power that is really the same as an old power except for being &quot;more&quot; is not really a new power at all. I suggest that many of the abilities I've seen for 4E look suspiciously similar to the 3.0 psionics way of doing things- I can't give specific examples, it's a general feeling. But that feeling definitely turns me off, particularly for Epic levels where things should really be different from earlier play. If that's the only way for classes to remain relevant at all levels, then IMO it's not worth doing at all and some classes should become irrelevant in certain regimes. Greater overall variety makes for greater interest.As I said, I'll at least get the core rulebooks and mull them over carefully, but right now I'm in &quot;wait and see&quot; mode due to not liking a large portion of what I've seen. I may well stick with 3.5 or move to Pathfinder in the end.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="paradox42, post: 4189767, member: 29746"] (Emphasis mine.) Irrelevant. I as the DM am the one who sees the simplification, and its negatives. Therefore I am the one turned off by it and will make the choice of whether or not to adopt the new system. Also, for PCs, I will note that "tons" of options that remain the same at all levels do not translate to real "tons." 3.0 psionics featured powers that dealt absolute amounts of damage, so that every [i]Concussion[/i] dealt exactly 3d6 damage, every time, no ifs ands or buts. To deal 5d6 damage with one manifestation, the character had to learn an entirely new power, [i]Greater Concussion[/i]. This wisely gave way to the Augmentation system in Malhavoc's psionics stuff and later on 3.5E psionics, because designers and players alike recognized that a "new" power that is really the same as an old power except for being "more" is not really a new power at all. I suggest that many of the abilities I've seen for 4E look suspiciously similar to the 3.0 psionics way of doing things- I can't give specific examples, it's a general feeling. But that feeling definitely turns me off, particularly for Epic levels where things should [b]really[/b] be different from earlier play. If that's the only way for classes to remain relevant at all levels, then IMO it's not worth doing at all and some classes [b]should[/b] become irrelevant in certain regimes. Greater overall variety makes for greater interest. As I said, I'll at least get the core rulebooks and mull them over carefully, but right now I'm in "wait and see" mode due to not liking a large portion of what I've seen. I may well stick with 3.5 or move to Pathfinder in the end. [/QUOTE]

Verification