Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6401821" data-attributes="member: 1210">Speaking as a 4e DM from before day 1, whose epic 4e game is still going, and who is a huge fan of 4e- and meaning no offense:So basically, you're going to make it useless for fighters, who tend to have low Int and Cha?If you want my opinion, you're overcomplicating this, changing it from a great and iconic fighter power to one that no player with even half an eye toward making effective choices would take. Far better to figure out how to justify/accept the revised mechanics in the game in your head, in my opinion.4e works best if you just squint and nod and say okay to a lot of things like that, and knocking oozes prone, and so on. Sometimes you need to make up appropriate fiction to justify it (the fighter taunts the foes and draws them in/uses fancy footwork/pulls the rug beneath their feet and jerks them toward him/stomps the ground so hard that the flagstones jump, pushing foes at him), and there's no reason the fiction must be the same every time. But footwork- think of sports teams, and how often a basketball player or soccer player (or whatever sport) can trick an opposing player into going left instead of forward. Honestly, CAGI is the coolest fighter power. It would be an awful shame to emasculate it like you're talking aboutIf you must include two different attacks for CAGI to do anything worthwhile, for God's sake, at least let the fighter use a decent stat for it. If you can't do either of those things, you're basically leaving it in as a 'trap' option- something that sucks mechanically enough that anyone who takes it will probably regret it. Better to ban it, honestly, than to let a player saddle his character with an option that poor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 6401821, member: 1210"] Speaking as a 4e DM from before day 1, whose epic 4e game is still going, and who is a huge fan of 4e- and meaning no offense: So basically, you're going to make it useless for fighters, who tend to have low Int and Cha? If you want my opinion, you're overcomplicating this, changing it from a great and iconic fighter power to one that no player with even half an eye toward making effective choices would take. Far better to figure out how to justify/accept the revised mechanics in the game in your head, in my opinion. 4e works best if you just squint and nod and say okay to a lot of things like that, and knocking oozes prone, and so on. Sometimes you need to make up appropriate fiction to justify it (the fighter taunts the foes and draws them in/uses fancy footwork/pulls the rug beneath their feet and jerks them toward him/stomps the ground so hard that the flagstones jump, pushing foes at him), and there's no reason the fiction must be the same every time. But footwork- think of sports teams, and how often a basketball player or soccer player (or whatever sport) can trick an opposing player into going left instead of forward. Honestly, CAGI is the [i]coolest[/i] fighter power. It would be an awful shame to emasculate it like you're talking about If you must include two different attacks for CAGI to do anything worthwhile, for God's sake, at least let the fighter use a decent stat for it. If you can't do either of those things, you're basically leaving it in as a 'trap' option- something that sucks mechanically enough that anyone who takes it will probably regret it. Better to ban it, honestly, than to let a player saddle his character with an option that poor. [/QUOTE]

Verification