Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7436310" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I understand that none of this is a 'tack on' solution. Anyway, I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying I think that the game you will get will be quite a bit different from how 4e works now.Characters will do a lot more spamming of basically the same 'power'. They will select an optimum set of options and stick with it for a wide variety of their 'bread and butter' attacks. It will be hard, at best, to produce really interesting sorts of results like a CaGI or an RoS because it would require some very different options which would be even harder to insure the balance and synergy of compared with the fairly tame options that U_K proposes in his designs. At least for the fighter I have a very distinct feeling that the end result would be quite Slayer-like, which isn't IMHO where I want to go with 4e. No doubt there are ways to introduce other new mechanics to compensate for those issues, but they will tend to move you back in the direction of more complexity. There were e-Classes like the Warpriest which are simpler than full up 4e PHB style classes, but avoid many of the pitfalls of them. My impression is it is harder to do this well, though. A number of the e-classes of this general type were fairly meh. The scout for instance, and the thief, as well as the sentinel are all tactically inferior to their PHB counterparts, though not by as much as the Slayer and Knight. I think this is a function of the limited options as well as an ill-adised attempt to subvert the source/role concepts. So we might say that there is A way to cut back on power sprawl and still do a decent class, which seems to be by converting encounter powers into static boosters, but oddly Essentials never quite tried THAT.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7436310, member: 82106"] Yeah, I understand that none of this is a 'tack on' solution. Anyway, I'm not saying it won't work. I'm saying I think that the game you will get will be quite a bit different from how 4e works now. Characters will do a lot more spamming of basically the same 'power'. They will select an optimum set of options and stick with it for a wide variety of their 'bread and butter' attacks. It will be hard, at best, to produce really interesting sorts of results like a CaGI or an RoS because it would require some very different options which would be even harder to insure the balance and synergy of compared with the fairly tame options that U_K proposes in his designs. At least for the fighter I have a very distinct feeling that the end result would be quite Slayer-like, which isn't IMHO where I want to go with 4e. No doubt there are ways to introduce other new mechanics to compensate for those issues, but they will tend to move you back in the direction of more complexity. There were e-Classes like the Warpriest which are simpler than full up 4e PHB style classes, but avoid many of the pitfalls of them. My impression is it is harder to do this well, though. A number of the e-classes of this general type were fairly meh. The scout for instance, and the thief, as well as the sentinel are all tactically inferior to their PHB counterparts, though not by as much as the Slayer and Knight. I think this is a function of the limited options as well as an ill-adised attempt to subvert the source/role concepts. So we might say that there is A way to cut back on power sprawl and still do a decent class, which seems to be by converting encounter powers into static boosters, but oddly Essentials never quite tried THAT. [/QUOTE]

Verification