Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5727658" data-attributes="member: 54710">I suppose I should have said more common mechanics, as yes, I mentioned martial weapon powers and the divine use of radiant damage in this thread:Oh, come on...&nbsp; I'm not suggesting that these are the only changes I'd make.&nbsp; Of course it also has to be balanced.If the classes all have &quot;meatier&quot; class abilities, more daily powers (or access to stronger ones) could be a characteristic of at least some of the arcane classes.&nbsp; Replacing daily powers with static bonuses for martial classes is just describing essentials.&nbsp; Warlord daily powers that provide a greater benefit if you use the plan before combat?&nbsp; That's something you could do today.When the designers were working on 4e, they didn't start with the grasp on the power system that they have today.&nbsp; As the essentials design shows, the underlying rules mechanics for 4e is capable of generating a set of classes with a more classic D&amp;D feel than they managed in PH1.&nbsp; Power sources are a good medium for this because they represent a collection of common characteristics of the in-game reality, that should be reflected by the rules mechanics.Martial powers could be less &quot;spell-like&quot; if the designers strictly limit themselves to plausible non-magical effects, and aren't as free-form with player-based narrative control as an explanation.&nbsp; Stances and powers that trigger off basic attacks are another good idea in this direction.&nbsp; You can also alter arcane powers to get something closer to the old magic-user feel.&nbsp; Maybe more arcane daily powers should have a &quot;disruptable&quot; keyword that means they trigger an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies that -- if it hits -- the daily power is lost?&nbsp; (Obviously, not every arcane class can have this characteristic, at least if we want swordmages to use these powers...)It's just drawing a tighter connection between the rules mechanics and the in-game reality.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5727658, member: 54710"] I suppose I should have said [i]more[/i] common mechanics, as yes, I mentioned martial weapon powers and the divine use of radiant damage in this thread: Oh, come on... I'm not suggesting that these are the [i]only[/i] changes I'd make. Of course it also has to be balanced. If the classes all have "meatier" class abilities, more daily powers (or access to stronger ones) could be a characteristic of at least some of the arcane classes. Replacing daily powers with static bonuses for martial classes is just describing essentials. Warlord daily powers that provide a greater benefit if you use the plan before combat? That's something you could do today. When the designers were working on 4e, they didn't start with the grasp on the power system that they have today. As the essentials design shows, the underlying rules mechanics for 4e is capable of generating a set of classes with a more classic D&D feel than they managed in PH1. Power sources are a good medium for this because they represent a collection of common characteristics of the in-game reality, that should be reflected by the rules mechanics. Martial powers could be less "spell-like" if the designers strictly limit themselves to plausible non-magical effects, and aren't as free-form with player-based narrative control as an explanation. Stances and powers that trigger off basic attacks are another good idea in this direction. You can also alter arcane powers to get something closer to the old magic-user feel. Maybe more arcane daily powers should have a "disruptable" keyword that means they trigger an opportunity attack from adjacent enemies that -- if it hits -- the daily power is lost? (Obviously, not every arcane class can have this characteristic, at least if we want swordmages to use these powers...) It's just drawing a tighter connection between the rules mechanics and the in-game reality. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification