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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dark080matter" data-source="post: 4127130" data-attributes="member: 61269">I'm not really following the complexity problem... why should it be more complex for a Player to keep track of which Form (of which only one can be active at a time) a player has taken than, just as an example, what enemy their Quarry/Curse/Mark is on?  Consider that the Defender characters could have potentially infinite Marked enemies.  What about the poor Wizard who has to remember which spell he prepared for his Daily?The Form system I proposed consists of Encounter-based powers that simply allow a simple framework for the character to switch up the form of their Rage/Totem/Shape/Aspect every Encounter (with a few exceptions of Sustain: Minor for the particularly potent powers), and by making the vast majority of these powers per-Encounter themselves they involve the exact same amount of book-keeping that the Divine characters have in 4e with their Channeling powers.Would you say that a system like Polymorph or Wildshape would be less complex?  Where any specific power can have a whole range of different permutations?  Or should we make a single basic Rage/Shape/Totem aspect that is tied directly into a Classes' basic Build Features and prevents expansion in further releases?  That seems to stifle differentiation among different characters of the same Build, and would limit a Barbarian to using the same basic Rage every encounter, over and over ad infinitum... That doesn't sound very 'instinctual' or interesting to me.As for your 2nd point, I strongly disagree, no Power Source should ever be designed as a "if it feels good, do it" conglomerate system... that's what happened to 3e and 3.5, there was no balance between systems because different spell systems were designed as a single unit, seemingly without reference to external balancing against the other systems in the game.  And even within Arcane and Divine there was little real agreement between classes (the Arcane classes all learned/scribed new spells differently, the Divine classes had various different types of Spontaneous Conversion and Spell Preparation that rarely agreed).  I do not think that repeating this implementation for the Primal power source is a good idea based on that example.The way I see it my proposed system is not in fact a reinvention of the Power system at all: and certainly no more than the DDXP Divine characters forced their players to "relearn"  rules system with the Divine Channeling class features, or the guy who rolled the Wizard felt silly having to choose from two Daily power when no one else does?The designers have explicitly stated that Power Sources feature distinct mechanical differentiation, they are NOT just fluffy differences.  And besides, is it so wrong to look for ways that these classes can operate on similar trends, even while maintaining their flavor and separate expertises?We haven't seen the multiclassing rules, so I think it's premature to speculate on how that will turn out before Wizards shows us the Core book releases... then at least we'll have the example of seeing how a Wizard/Cleric (How about a Fighter/Warlock?) will work out.  Based on what we've seen of Power Source differences, I don't feel that the systems Ironblue and I proposed are really at all more complex compared to how Arcane, Divine, and Martial already fiddle with the basic framework in their own unique ways.  Presumably they have already been configured so that multi-classing "works" without causing a clash of Power Source mechanics.Yeah... and it looks like you made the right choice, because the thread Ironblue and I made is dying in obscurity over in the Wizards forums...  :\ Well different forum atmospheres and such.... I hope it won't go unnoticed for too much longer though (it's only been 1 day after all!).  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Must think Happy Thoughts!Anyway despite my differences of opinion, I wish you the best of luck with this thread!  You definitely put some thought into it all.  And send me some of that luck on the side too....  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And please, if anybody finds this debate compelling, <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1008043" target="_blank">come over to the Wizards forum</a>  and post there as well!  I'd be most grateful to anyone who does so.</blockquote>

Verification