Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6133498" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, some of them weren't sub-optimal. The problem was kind of that because they were treated so differently from 'normal' attacks they were bound to be either a lot better or a lot worse, so in a given situation it was all or nothing. Coupled with that characters either optimized them or they weren't worth using, and you could only be good at a very few things (especially as a fighter). So you had the tripping guy that just ALWAYS tripped stuff, but was pretty much SOL against stuff that couldn't be tripped, etc. This is why I felt that the 4e approach of doing things as attacks using powers, or at most as skill checks (which are very much like attacks and can be considered the same thing effectively) was so robust. It means that if someone can trip it will be roughly as good as other sorts of attacks, possibly good enough to be encounter or daily depending all the details, but in every case you'll look at your options and more likely pick that one for good tactical or story reasons vs just because its mechanically optimum. Characters without a specific power can then fall back on page 42, which is guaranteed to be either situational or slightly inferior to an encounter power in most cases. No system is perfect and in practice 4e's approach can be improved a bit, but I find it hard to endorse DDN when its only reaction to what was learned in 4e is to shun it for no discernible reason except it was in 4e. Sorry, DDN should do things for good design reasons, not "because 4e icky poo".</blockquote>

Verification