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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="amerigoV" data-source="post: 5964026">I agree on Alignment - its just never been done well. It seemed to me to start as a way to identify us vs. them. Then it grew into a weird system that no one could ever wrap their heads around (given people have argued over alignment for 30 years). To me, if you are going to register as both Lawful and Good via magic based on various spells the same as (say) an angle from "heaven", then you are not playing a character that is "Neutral with Lawful and Good Tenancies" that most people would play the alignment. Basically you are an extreme and every action and nonaction needs to fit into that bucket. But that is just an example.The action economy has always been annoying. You need certain feats or classes to be allowed certain actions (two-weapon fighting is an example). The more you try to do, the higher the penalty to each action is an easier solution. If you are good at what you do, multiple actions should be available at a reasonable penalty*.* 3.x's TWF is partly this, but the initial penalties are so punitive no one would try it even in desperation.  A heavy feat tax later and you can only utilize it if you only move less than 5'. So you have this highly dexterous whirling dervish --- so long as you stand still. Then need to make "luck" a resource that can be spend instead of it all being on the defensive side. All the "luck" is built into the escalating hit points. Pull some of that out and let the player allocate it. In a rough and simple 4e example, pull back on the hits points, give a few more Surges. The Surges are used for healing (as currently in the system) or to power Encounter or Daily powers (Daily being available more, but cost more to activate). If you want to be a glass cannon, go right ahead (put all your surges to offense).</blockquote>

Verification