Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 4194164" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey paradox42 matey! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Thats always going to be the case. But we should note that you yourself play a game that only vaguely resembles 3.5 do you not?&nbsp;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.</blockquote>I certainly think 4E will have attacks that deal a similar amount of damage for a few reasons. Firstly because its better balanced and secondly the trend is for lower damage (so its less of a spread to play with). So we can see at 1st-level the encounter powers do (approx.) double base damage while daily powers do (approx.) triple base damage. But clearly as you ascend, things branch out far more (as noted in the few spells released so far).Also in looking at 4E, its less about the damage and more about what the (secondary) effect of the attack/spell. There seems to be lots of status changes, and push targets and so forth. Which is basically what I was trying to accomplish with my metamartial maneouvers in Ascension.The idea that classes should become irrelevant is just nonsensical. 4E outlines the archetypes beyond the classes (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller) and I imagine there will be strong distinctions between such archetypes as characters level up.Well at least you are going to wait and see. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Upper_Krust, post: 4194164, member: 326"] Hey paradox42 matey! :) Thats always going to be the case. But we should note that you yourself play a game that only vaguely resembles 3.5 do you not? 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. [/QUOTE] I certainly think 4E will have attacks that deal a similar amount of damage for a few reasons. Firstly because its better balanced and secondly the trend is for lower damage (so its less of a spread to play with). So we can see at 1st-level the encounter powers do (approx.) double base damage while daily powers do (approx.) triple base damage. But clearly as you ascend, things branch out far more (as noted in the few spells released so far). Also in looking at 4E, its less about the damage and more about what the (secondary) effect of the attack/spell. There seems to be lots of status changes, and push targets and so forth. Which is basically what I was trying to accomplish with my metamartial maneouvers in Ascension. The idea that classes should become irrelevant is just nonsensical. 4E outlines the archetypes beyond the classes (Striker, Defender, Leader, Controller) and I imagine there will be strong distinctions between such archetypes as characters level up. Well at least you are going to wait and see. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification