Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6027671" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't mind the V-shaped classes, although I can see that they obviously create some complexities - and suck for humans wanting to take their bonus at-will!What I like about the V-shaped classes is that they allow an Essentials-style pooling of utility powers for classes that have (at least sometimes) different attack powers, and whose different stats capture something archetypically important. For example, STR paladins are Lancelot whereas CHA paladins are Galahad. That's a meaningful distinction that the V-shaped design captures nicely.The only MM solo I've used is the Young Black Dragon - it was an enjoyable fight, but the set up wasn't careless on my part. (In particular, the wizard had a statue of the Summer Queen which he was using to dispel the darkness that the dragon kept setting up - a page 42 Arcana-based Dispel Magic improvisation.)We don't use the Expertise feats in my game, but (at 18th level) I'm starting to notice it as a factor in resolution. The party does have quite a bit of to-hit bonus - the Demonskin Adept action point power, and the Battlefield Archer quarry benefit, as well as plenty of ways of getting combat advantage - so I don't think I just want to drop the Expertise feats in. Given that many opponents (particularly the equal or higher level ones) are getting to the point of being &quot;named&quot; opponents of some sort or another, I am thinking about ways of trying to bring in &quot;targetted&quot; bonuses - a bit like some of the ideas for circumventing divine discorporation.None of this is meant by way of contradiction - just some of my personal reflections on some of the more contentious aspects of early 4e design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6027671, member: 42582"] I don't mind the V-shaped classes, although I can see that they obviously create some complexities - and suck for humans wanting to take their bonus at-will! What I like about the V-shaped classes is that they allow an Essentials-style pooling of utility powers for classes that have (at least sometimes) different attack powers, and whose different stats capture something archetypically important. For example, STR paladins are Lancelot whereas CHA paladins are Galahad. That's a meaningful distinction that the V-shaped design captures nicely. The only MM solo I've used is the Young Black Dragon - it was an enjoyable fight, but the set up wasn't careless on my part. (In particular, the wizard had a statue of the Summer Queen which he was using to dispel the darkness that the dragon kept setting up - a page 42 Arcana-based Dispel Magic improvisation.) We don't use the Expertise feats in my game, but (at 18th level) I'm starting to notice it as a factor in resolution. The party does have quite a bit of to-hit bonus - the Demonskin Adept action point power, and the Battlefield Archer quarry benefit, as well as plenty of ways of getting combat advantage - so I don't think I just want to drop the Expertise feats in. Given that many opponents (particularly the equal or higher level ones) are getting to the point of being "named" opponents of some sort or another, I am thinking about ways of trying to bring in "targetted" bonuses - a bit like some of the ideas for circumventing divine discorporation. None of this is meant by way of contradiction - just some of my personal reflections on some of the more contentious aspects of early 4e design. [/QUOTE]

Verification