Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7875144" data-attributes="member: 20564">Both parts of that were intentional design decisions, so saying you dislike it without replacing the heavy lifting it is doing is kinda pointless.They strongly wanted bounded accuracy, which means that they weren't scaling AC and saves way up. HPs were left as the primary knob for scaling foe longevity. This is well documented. (Also add in streamlining, so things like DR that would stop a certain amount of damage was replaced by Resistance which halves damage.)Low end was more of the complaints how 4e everyone started very powerful and was a regression back to how earlier editions did it in order to woo players back.So ... how would you solve these problems with their same constraints?Subclasses are again harking back to earlier editions (where Ranger and Barbarian and such WERE subclasses of fighter).&nbsp; They tried bringing back PrCs in a UA article, and the survey results for it were bad enought hat they never opened that can of worm again.&nbsp; I'm with you here.&nbsp; Feels like they wanted a nod to the more narrative games out there and a way to mechanically support RP.&nbsp; But it feels bolted on - it's not integrated into the classes or anywhere else.&nbsp; Even back in the 90s World of Darkenss had following your Virtue or Vice to replenish willpower which fueled things.&nbsp; Plus it's a lot for the DM to remember, five be character.&nbsp; While FATE asks the DM to know five Aspects per character, that's 80% fof the entirety of what's on their character sheet.Agreed.&nbsp; I'd even like if there were multiple different choices for a class to grant variation.&nbsp; Your CHR-based bard is a performer, while your INT-based bard is a loremaster.&nbsp; Same abilities, not taking the place of subclasses.&nbsp; Just alternate ways to build.&nbsp; But to do that you need to do as you say and balance the ability scores against each other first.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7875144, member: 20564"] Both parts of that were intentional design decisions, so saying you dislike it without replacing the heavy lifting it is doing is kinda pointless. They strongly wanted bounded accuracy, which means that they weren't scaling AC and saves way up. HPs were left as the primary knob for scaling foe longevity. This is well documented. (Also add in streamlining, so things like DR that would stop a certain amount of damage was replaced by Resistance which halves damage.) Low end was more of the complaints how 4e everyone started very powerful and was a regression back to how earlier editions did it in order to woo players back. So ... how would you solve these problems with their same constraints? Subclasses are again harking back to earlier editions (where Ranger and Barbarian and such WERE subclasses of fighter). They tried bringing back PrCs in a UA article, and the survey results for it were bad enought hat they never opened that can of worm again. I'm with you here. Feels like they wanted a nod to the more narrative games out there and a way to mechanically support RP. But it feels bolted on - it's not integrated into the classes or anywhere else. Even back in the 90s World of Darkenss had following your Virtue or Vice to replenish willpower which fueled things. Plus it's a lot for the DM to remember, five be character. While FATE asks the DM to know five Aspects per character, that's 80% fof the entirety of what's on their character sheet. Agreed. I'd even like if there were multiple different choices for a class to grant variation. Your CHR-based bard is a performer, while your INT-based bard is a loremaster. Same abilities, not taking the place of subclasses. Just alternate ways to build. But to do that you need to do as you say and balance the ability scores against each other first. [/QUOTE]

Verification