Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5621170" data-attributes="member: 27160">Hmm, okay...I agree; I think this part is completely possible.&nbsp; It is, in essence, 4E but with the &quot;starter characters&quot; using only a subset of the simpler-to-run powers, etc.&nbsp; I'm sure it's possible (with some work) to get that balanced well enough for &quot;all practical purposes&quot;.This, however, is where I see the problems arising.Having two combat systems (just for example, but likely to be the worst case since it's the most 'developed' part of the system) that are so different as to have or not have a movement grid, and still have the 'simple' characters (at least) with the same effectiveness agains all the 'simple' monsters with both combat systems when played by fairly skilled tactical players... just ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see.Take something as simple as flanking.&nbsp; How are you going to decide if a creature gets +2 to hit when not using a grid?&nbsp; When do creatures get an opportunity attack?&nbsp; How do &quot;defenders&quot; even work with this system?&nbsp; Or controllers?&nbsp; Do you have 'rules' for playing monsters when using a grid to make sure that the effectiveness of area powers is roughly the same as when not using a grid?&nbsp; The complexity of mixing such radically alien types of system - never mind the radically alien styles and foci of play that they support and imply - just seems insurmountable, to me.Well, yeah - if they ever get developed, I'll take two! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5621170, member: 27160"] Hmm, okay... I agree; I think this part is completely possible. It is, in essence, 4E but with the "starter characters" using only a subset of the simpler-to-run powers, etc. I'm sure it's possible (with some work) to get that balanced well enough for "all practical purposes". This, however, is where I see the problems arising. Having two combat systems (just for example, but likely to be the worst case since it's the most 'developed' part of the system) that are so different as to have or not have a movement grid, and still have the 'simple' characters (at least) with the same effectiveness agains all the 'simple' monsters with both combat systems when played by fairly skilled tactical players... just ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see. Take something as simple as flanking. How are you going to decide if a creature gets +2 to hit when not using a grid? When do creatures get an opportunity attack? How do "defenders" even work with this system? Or controllers? Do you have 'rules' for playing monsters when using a grid to make sure that the effectiveness of area powers is roughly the same as when not using a grid? The complexity of mixing such radically alien types of system - never mind the radically alien styles and foci of play that they support and imply - just seems insurmountable, to me. Well, yeah - if [I]they[/I] ever get developed, I'll take two! :lol: [/QUOTE]

Verification