Rule of Three: 7/11

[Kzach]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 11/07/2011)

I really like his answers to number three. I'd really love to see the game move forward more in an Essentials direction but with module-like complexity that could be added for the 'advanced' players who prefer the AEDU structure.

 

[RangerWickett]

Ah, I do like that one.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It almost seems like he's saying, "We were going to do an effects based game, but hey, the Hero system already exists!"

Seriously, going forward with the current methodology, when you look at it and know its problematic, is not going to do the game any favors.

The problem is rules bloat ladies and gentlemen and strangely enough, renaming powers and abilities isn't the way to reduce that.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Well it's interesting they finally realized the downside of having a unique power list for every full class out there. While at the beginning it made classes more unique, it's started to make there be too many powers out there.

While it's too late now, I think they should have just had things like Arcane/Martial/Divine/Primal/Psionic/Shadow/Elemental Powers for all classes of a given power source to draw from, followed by powers of certain keywords like Fire, Evocation, Patron, Creation, Full Discipline, Heavy Blade and so on, with maybe some based on roles, and then only a few powers exclusive to class.

 

[MrMyth]

Yeah, that third answer is what I've wanted to see from the beginning.

 

[drothgery]

Well it's interesting they finally realized the downside of having a unique power list for every full class out there. While at the beginning it made classes more unique, it's started to make there be too many powers out there.

While it's too late now, I think they should have just had things like Arcane/Martial/Divine/Primal/Psionic/Shadow/Elemental Powers for all classes of a given power source to draw from, followed by powers of certain keywords like Fire, Evocation, Patron, Creation, Full Discipline, Heavy Blade and so on, with maybe some based on roles, and then only a few powers exclusive to class.

My idea was encounter attack powers by power source, utility powers by combat role ( i.e. controller / leader / striker / defender ), and at-wills and dailies by class (and replaceable by class features).

 

[keterys]

Or be even more flexible with role + power source - just making stuff up to show some variances, don't need to agree or disagree with any choices, just showing possibility.

Resurgence
Utility 2
Source: Any
Role: Any
Encounter
Minor Action
Must be bloodied. Gain 5 temporary hit points per tier.

Sidestep
Utility 2
Source: Martial
Role: Defender, Striker
Encounter
Immediate Reaction
When an enemy moves adjacent, shift 3 squares to a different square adjacent to that enemy.

Smashing Strike
Encounter 1
Source: Not Arcane
Role: Not Leader
Encounter
Standard Action
Melee Weapon
2W + push 3 + prone.

 

[Kzach]

Or be even more flexible with role + power source - just making stuff up to show some variances, don't need to agree or disagree with any choices, just showing possibility.

I'd rather have things be particular to a role and/or power source. So only defenders got powers that interrupted attacks against other party members, only leaders could pull, push or slide allies, controllers be the only ones who could pull, push or slide enemies, etc.

For variance you could mix things up a little bit with riders on powers based on secondary role. For me, this fits nicely since it's a secondary power which is based on your secondary ability score. So a paladin who tends towards leader as a secondary role could have an interrupt power against an enemy that attacked an ally that also pushed the targeted ally.

This instead of generic abilities across classes. Make the powers MORE role dependent, not less.

 

[P1NBACK]

Wtf is Rich Baker smoking?

For example, it's easier to tank with a 4e fighter than with a 1e, 2e, or 3e fighter, because the 4e fighter possesses "role insulation" features such as Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority.

So, highest AC, Hit Points, Attacks and Damage wasn't "role insulation"?

And, this is directly contradicted by this statement not a few sentences later in the next answer:

Every 1e or 2e player knows that it's the job of the fighter to protect the wizard from getting attacked in melee, and it's the job of the cleric to keep the fighter on his feet.

Wait a minute, Rich... If every player of 1E and 2E knows the role of the Fighter is to protect the Wizard, and it's the role of the Cleric to keep the Fighter on his feet, then how can you say "role insulation" makes it easier to play a Fighter...?

Oh, I see. In 4E, you gave made it game jargon like, "Role", whereas in 1E or 2E it's just a "job" the class does.

Wow. Gimme a break.

 

[TerraDave]

Thats worth a wow? really?

I think the key word is just "easier". Not possible, likely, will, knows that...easier.