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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 5565193" data-attributes="member: 59057">I really like the in-combat balance. But I really liked rituals that are actually able to produce damaging effects, if you are able to pull it of in 5 min. I like the poison, Dausul mentions.And I like the design of the executioner´s at-wills. More powers you vould theoretically do all the time, but limited by beeing in a good situation.It is not that i despise the encounter powers, that allow the player to influence the narrative, but i really do despise powers that you usually use without paying attention to the action.Some encounter powers or at-wills look so superior to everything if you don´t look at it in a vacuum. The ranger actually has other at-will powers that are worth looking at. Just none of them having that high damage potential.Terrain powers are a concept, i am really fond of. Those powers reward clever use of terrain. You really should just say yes, if the thief tries to flambee the troll, setting up the damage high enough to make it worth using in this situation. Or better making it supplement the rogues ability to deal damage, by making it a minor action and dealing one or two ongoing fire damage (save ends)...it is the DM who makes improvisation work. And it is the rule set that helps inexperienced, lazy or uncreative DM´s (like me).3e was really helpful, by giving rules for disarming or tripping but those powers were usually too restrictive (just like 1st edition thief skills chances were too low). The concept of encounter powers with prerequisites like combat advantage and actually giving a realistic chance is a definitely better design approach than allowing it all the time but making it useless if you not invest a lot in feats...(bull rush and grab of 4e are not goof enough later on too...)</blockquote>

Verification