Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5523327" data-attributes="member: 87792">This is highly DM-dependent.  And if the DM wants to encourage thinking outside the box, the guidance and support given to DMs in 4e kicks that given in 3e up one side and down the other while keeping its hands behind its back.  page 42.  That depends how good you are at visualising powers.  There's a huge mental model there of what's actually going on if you think the right way. And if you actually understand 4e, 4e has an incredibly strong and useful interlinking of fluff with rules.    Is this going to be another discussion of Come And Get It?  Because almost all the powers do have reasonable fluff backing them.  And I fluff my own as well.  Symmetric class design has been heavily weakened by Essentials.  What that gained was an easier job for the DM.  You mean the effects based monster design that allows my dragons to behave like giant fire-breathing reptiles (or whatever breath weapon...) and not like spellcasters with wings and scales if I want to play them effectively?  I'd say that's a better representation of the fluff than 3e ever was.  It's just effects based rather than simulationist - meaning that what matters is that the monsters "play right" and behave the way they do in fluff, as they generally do.  And I will say that monster design has got a lot better over time - Monster Vault is a massive improvement over the MM1 despite a huge overlap in terms of monsters covered.  The save also makes you fall prone.  The assumption being that under almost all circumstances prone is worse than slid.  It's the "clinging on by your fingertips" save.  If you want to trade your standard in for an interrupt, I'd let you.  It's like the "Throwing yourself prone to avoid forced movement into normal terrain" - almost always sub-optimal enough that it's not presented to avoid analysis paralysis. Using the monster's bulk as cover rather than simply writhing on the ground making a target of yourself.  A decent fudge.  Explain.  You mean on pushes?  I also find it better for RP than 3.X because there isn't the "Get a bigger hammer" syndrome.  The answer to situations is think them through and solve them in character and in the world - not track down which spell in your spellbook was designed for this circumstance.  The art of power design - and something that Wizards normally succeeds at - is making sure that when a power is thematically appropriate it is tactically sensible and vise-versa.  If this doesn't happen then the power is badly designed.  And while on the subject And you've just confirmed that you really don't have good experience with 4e.  You might as well say that D20 took away all meaningful difference because everything is resolved on a D20 rather than percentile dice.  My most recent three active characters are a Wizard, a Monk, and a Bravura Warlord - and they are incredibly different from each other. The monk is what the 3.X monk dreams of being but never quite succeeded at.  A complete wire-fu master, backflipping all over the place and booting people in the head or sweeping their legs out from under them with his staff.  Blink and he's darted half way across the battlefield, even to places you never thought he could reach on foot.  Alternatively he runs across rooftops like a Parkour expert or sticks to the shadows like the best of thieves and can sometimes almost fly up walls. The wizard is a wizard.  Summons storm pillars and minature tornados to clog up the battlefield (or intimidate), and has some illusions and some hypnotic tricks.  Magical, squishy, and effective if no one gets to him.  He's every bit as magical as any 3.X wizard, whether or not there's Vancian casting involved.  Out of combat he's a low level illusionist (he's only level 3) and an effective loremaster. The warlord ... is Leonidas.  Other than that he wears sane armour rather than fights bare chested.  He's a master of the battlefield, leading from the front to smash the enemy lines and bowl them over while looking out for his allies and either inspiring them to keep going or warning them of what's coming.  His approach can be summed up as "Who Dares Wins" (although he's tactically ruthless in addition to this) and he's an expert at tempting his enemies by giving them half an opening at the right moment that if they take it it gives his allies an opening of their own.  Out of combat he's alert, perceptive, and everything you'd expect from someone who leads from the front. In each case the playstyle is completely different and the experience of playing them is very very distinct.  And the rules support and encourage this distinctiveness.  I therefore reject your implication that symmetric design implies that classes aren't meaningfully different. In short, everything you've just said tells me that you simply don't get 4e.  And given the lack of help in the PHB I don't blame you.  But your criticisms show problems with the presentation rather than the system.</blockquote>

Verification