Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cryptos" data-source="post: 4528383" data-attributes="member: 58439">Put me down for &quot;not far enough&quot; in most cases interspersed with a few &quot;WTF?&quot; issues.Not far enough 1)&nbsp; Alignment.&nbsp; Just kill it.&nbsp; It's got no mechanical purpose now.&nbsp; Excellent work!&nbsp; But then, why keep it?Not far enough 2)&nbsp; Class restrictions / design flaws.&nbsp; For the most part, these were done away with in 4e.&nbsp; Hooray!&nbsp; But then you get to the Rogue and look at the powers... it makes it very tough for me to justify taking the Rogue class when I have to choose between Butterknife and Bean Bag if I want to use the powers of the class, when I can just take a less weapon restricted class, pick up roguish skills and say &quot;I'm a rogue.&quot;&nbsp; Let alone the havoc it plays on a character that wants to multiclass into Rogue.&nbsp; Fighter / Rogue?&nbsp; &quot;I'm a master of combat who has some experience in exploiting my enemy's weaknesses and can usually do so about once per battle, but to do so I have to switch from my hackmaster 2000 to this butterknife.&nbsp; Oh, I'm a master of combat, but I can only stab your kidneys with a much, much smaller blade.&quot;Limit proficiency, fine.&nbsp; All classes deal with that to some extent.&nbsp; But to carry the proficiency limitations into the rules of the each and every power in the class?&nbsp; Yikes.&nbsp; You just made what should be one of my top 3 classes move to the bottom of the list.I feel this is part of a problem shared by Star Pact Warlocks, where only one of four pacts that is split 50/50 in their key ability for attacks.For both the rogues and one-fourth of warlocks (inexplicably only 1/4th), they seem to have placed very tough restrictions on the class or path as a whole because one ability was too good (sneak attack or fate of the void.)&nbsp; This seems like backwards design to me.&nbsp; If the ability's too good, place restrictions within the ability, not within the whole class.&nbsp; I consider examples of this sort of design the dumbest part of 4e.The design of the Rogue class seems flawed, and there are some strange, unevenly skewed things going on within the Warlock class that I tend to give the hairy eyeball every time I look at them.&nbsp; I guess this leans slightly in the 'WTF' category as well.WTF? #1:&nbsp; What's with all the damn elemental powers before we've even gotten a chance to see an elemental power source?&nbsp; Fire wizards, ice wizards, storm wizards, fire swordmages, storm swordmages... it seems like Arcane IS the elemental power source to me.&nbsp; So very, very bizarre.&nbsp; In some respects it's a case of not going far enough, because this allowed them to give Wizards sacred cows like Burning Hands and Fireball.&nbsp; But for me it's still very much a &quot;WTF were they thinking&quot; thing as well.&nbsp; If they come out with an elemental power source after seeing what powers are in Arcane, I'm going to be very confused.WTF #2:&nbsp; Skill challenges played according to RAW just seem too weird.&nbsp; &quot;Ok, it's time for the bonus round!&nbsp; Use these skills this many times, successfully roll the dice and you get a prize!&quot;&nbsp; I loved the way they sounded leading up to the release of 4e, and will probably continue to use them in that more freeform &quot;here's the problem, figure out how you're going to solve it and what skills you'll use to do so&quot; format.&nbsp; The RAW for skill challenges makes me wonder, again, &quot;WTF were they thinking&quot;?&nbsp; I can only suspect they might have dumbed the whole thing down and cut out room for creativity because of some very bad feedback from some very dull, non-roleplay testers.Edit:&nbsp; Not far enough #3:&nbsp; You created a very tactical combat system.&nbsp; Cool!&nbsp; But you kept the grid, when hexes would make more sense for the shape of blasts and bursts, and your 1-1-1 diagonal movement scheme.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cryptos, post: 4528383, member: 58439"] Put me down for "not far enough" in most cases interspersed with a few "WTF?" issues. Not far enough 1) Alignment. Just kill it. It's got no mechanical purpose now. Excellent work! But then, why keep it? Not far enough 2) Class restrictions / design flaws. For the most part, these were done away with in 4e. Hooray! But then you get to the Rogue and look at the powers... it makes it very tough for me to justify taking the Rogue class when I have to choose between Butterknife and Bean Bag if I want to use the powers of the class, when I can just take a less weapon restricted class, pick up roguish skills and say "I'm a rogue." Let alone the havoc it plays on a character that wants to multiclass into Rogue. Fighter / Rogue? "I'm a master of combat who has some experience in exploiting my enemy's weaknesses and can usually do so about once per battle, but to do so I have to switch from my hackmaster 2000 to this butterknife. Oh, I'm a master of combat, but I can only stab your kidneys with a much, much smaller blade." Limit proficiency, fine. All classes deal with that to some extent. But to carry the proficiency limitations into the rules of the each and every power in the class? Yikes. You just made what should be one of my top 3 classes move to the bottom of the list. I feel this is part of a problem shared by Star Pact Warlocks, where only one of four pacts that is split 50/50 in their key ability for attacks. For both the rogues and one-fourth of warlocks (inexplicably [B]only[/B] 1/4th), they seem to have placed very tough restrictions on the [I]class or path as a whole[/I] because [I]one ability[/I] was too good (sneak attack or fate of the void.) This seems like backwards design to me. If the ability's too good, place restrictions within the ability, not within the whole class. I consider examples of this sort of design the dumbest part of 4e. The design of the Rogue class seems flawed, and there are some strange, unevenly skewed things going on within the Warlock class that I tend to give the hairy eyeball every time I look at them. I guess this leans slightly in the 'WTF' category as well. WTF? #1: What's with all the damn elemental powers before we've even gotten a chance to see an elemental power source? Fire wizards, ice wizards, storm wizards, fire swordmages, storm swordmages... it seems like Arcane [I]IS[/I] the elemental power source to me. So very, very bizarre. In some respects it's a case of not going far enough, because this allowed them to give Wizards sacred cows like Burning Hands and Fireball. But for me it's still very much a "WTF were they thinking" thing as well. If they come out with an elemental power source after seeing what powers are in Arcane, I'm going to be [I]very[/I] confused. WTF #2: Skill challenges played according to RAW just seem too weird. "Ok, it's time for the bonus round! Use these skills this many times, successfully roll the dice and you get a prize!" I loved the way they sounded leading up to the release of 4e, and will probably continue to use them in that more freeform "here's the problem, figure out how you're going to solve it and what skills you'll use to do so" format. The RAW for skill challenges makes me wonder, again, "WTF were they thinking"? I can only suspect they might have dumbed the whole thing down and cut out room for creativity because of some very bad feedback from some very dull, non-roleplay testers. Edit: Not far enough #3: You created a very tactical combat system. Cool! But you kept the grid, when hexes would make more sense for the shape of blasts and bursts, and your 1-1-1 diagonal movement scheme. [/QUOTE]

Verification