They lose out a bit on ranged powers--ranged basic attacks with heavy thrown weapons use Strength for attack and damage, but heavy thrown weapons don't override power-defined bonuses. I suppose you could house-rule it, if you were so inclined, or just stick to ranged basic attacks to take advantage of high Strength.
Proud Nails?
They lose out a bit on ranged powers--ranged basic attacks with heavy thrown weapons use Strength for attack and damage, but heavy thrown weapons don't override power-defined bonuses. I suppose you could house-rule it, if you were so inclined, or just stick to ranged basic attacks to take advantage of high Strength.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Opposed skill checks. One of the big deals made in 4e was that there would only be one resolution system: roll d20 vs target. Opposed checks provide a moving target. Solution: In all cases, the character using an action to make a skill check should use the opposing character's 'passive' number as his target. So, if you hide from someone on your turn, you make a stealth check vs his passive perception, on his turn, he makes a perception check vs your passive stealth. Keeps it consistent.
Multiclassing to Paragon Paths. One of the few possible points of multiclassing is to snag a paragon path from another class, but, often, Paragon Paths have one or more features or abilities that are meaningless without a native class feature - forever unobtainable to the multiclasser. Either Paths should be purged of such dependencies, or class features should be obtainable to multiclassers (perhaps in a watered down version via yet another sort of multiclassing feat).
Unique Powers: While giving ever class the same progression simplified things, it could also have gone a long way towards allowing customizeability. If powers were balanced for thier level, rather than balanced for thier class, they could be grouped more generically by power source, rather than having to have 'unique' powers for different classes that were actually identical (like Sure Strike and Careful Strike). Also, maybe we wouldn't need so darn many 'Gerunding Nonsequitor Attack' power-names that are unevocative or falsely evocative & don't help your remember what the power does or anything.
Multiclassing to Paragon Paths. One of the few possible points of multiclassing is to snag a paragon path from another class, but, often, Paragon Paths have one or more features or abilities that are meaningless without a native class feature - forever unobtainable to the multiclasser. Either Paths should be purged of such dependencies, or class features should be obtainable to multiclassers (perhaps in a watered down version via yet another sort of multiclassing feat).
Unique Powers: While giving ever class the same progression simplified things, it could also have gone a long way towards allowing customizeability. If powers were balanced for thier level, rather than balanced for thier class, they could be grouped more generically by power source, rather than having to have 'unique' powers for different classes that were actually identical (like Sure Strike and Careful Strike). Also, maybe we wouldn't need so darn many 'Gerunding Nonsequitor Attack' power-names that are unevocative or falsely evocative & don't help your remember what the power does or anything.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I agree, I was expecting to see a little more in this respect from the very beginning. It sounded in the preview like it was a significant choice from the earliest levels but apart from a few(?) powers and some paragon level(?) feats it doesn't make all that much difference.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Again, I agree most strongly.
On the one hand the concept of multiclass feats to allow access into other paragon paths was a stroke of genius. On the other hand stifling so many paragon paths with limitations that locks out multiclassed characters seems extraordinarily short-sighted, even stupid.
It is ironic that my 4e game starts with many more house-rules than my 3e game did!
Storminator
First Post
That's interesting. I have no problem house ruling 4e, but I prefered having a lousy game experience to house ruling 3e.
I had no 3e house rules (a game I grew to dread playing), and I already have a couple for 4e (a game I'm quite enjoying).
PS
Eldorian
First Post
For me the 'Proud Nail' of 4e is at the very heart of it. The powers system that makes everyone a vancian caster, no matter how inappropriate.
Yet you continue to post on this forum, and indeed, won't stop with the inane "wizard/kensei" example that you insist is RAW.
The only thing I dislike about the system, that I've discovered yet, isn't a "proud nail" by my understanding of the term, but is the lack of paragon paths that make interesting multiclass choices (multiclass paragon paths are awesome, however). I really liked Wizard of the Spiral Tower for a warlord/wizard, but the requirement of "specialization" in an implement basically ruined it for me. I mean, I'll still make that character and use that paragon path someday, but it wasn't how the rules were written, and I can't see why not. But I'm not afraid to change things.
The coup de grace rules. Perhaps I misread them, but if CdG is a standard action, then an opponent can go all the way across the battlefield and end someone. In my book, any intelligent creature will CdG opponents, for two reasons: (1) Each downed opponent has a 5% chance per round of getting back up; (2) If the opposing side has any healers, the opponent will *certainly* be back up.
Now, I know the DMG advises DMs against having opponents hit players when they're down, and that advice sticks in my craw. It's kind of like the old Paladin Problem -- balancing a rules effect with a roleplay effect. Paladins get X, but are restricted by moral code Y.
At heart, that *is* what bothers me. Rules crunch is, in 4E, balanced by DMG fluff. Everything from wish lists (rules crunch economy balanced by DMG fluff Santa Claus) to the coup de grace rules.
So, to encapsulate my "proud nail": I don't like rules that are only balanced if I, as DM, play the way that the (rather amateurish, to be honest) DMG wants me to play. I would have loved the 4E DMG at age 15, and I think the 4E DMG may be just the tool to teach a new generation how to do it, but really, after DMing for 20 years I think I can take the training wheels off.
Now, I know the DMG advises DMs against having opponents hit players when they're down, and that advice sticks in my craw. It's kind of like the old Paladin Problem -- balancing a rules effect with a roleplay effect. Paladins get X, but are restricted by moral code Y.
At heart, that *is* what bothers me. Rules crunch is, in 4E, balanced by DMG fluff. Everything from wish lists (rules crunch economy balanced by DMG fluff Santa Claus) to the coup de grace rules.
So, to encapsulate my "proud nail": I don't like rules that are only balanced if I, as DM, play the way that the (rather amateurish, to be honest) DMG wants me to play. I would have loved the 4E DMG at age 15, and I think the 4E DMG may be just the tool to teach a new generation how to do it, but really, after DMing for 20 years I think I can take the training wheels off.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Dormain1
Explorer
sorry must have missed that in the PHB
thye also say something on the top of pg 56so would that mean that the implement keyword is only for if you can use the implement mastery powers with the class power then and any proficiencey and enhancement bonus? that sucks
I prefer it to be like the weapon keywords ie must be using a weapon...even unarmed is a weapon
sorry I was trying to say that the rogue was not using the item merly holding it so does not get the keyword and that the second example of the staff of storms grants the keywords to the powers so the item power can be used
I dont think its that big a deal if an implement works the same as a weapon, they already grant a plus to hit and dmg why not a keyword or two
Last edited:
Similar Threads
