Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7042804" data-attributes="member: 996">It also has the choices 'which stance' and 'do I use Power Attack,' and, later, utilities.&nbsp; A pre-build, especially one with custom powers designed for that purpose, could probably have been reduced to what weapon do I draw, who do I hit with it, and how hard through both an encounter and daily version of power attack.&nbsp; It could've been simpler than the Slayer in play.&nbsp; What's more, as you got used to it, you could branch out when you felt like it seamlessly, and you'd've become familiar with the AEDU progression and resource management in the process.&nbsp; Rather than feeling like that's all you know how to play and getting stuck in a rut.People under-rate how much consistency simplifies things.&nbsp; The first 4e campaign I played in, I was stunned the first few times we leveled, at how clear &amp; simple it all was.&nbsp; You'e all 2nd level, pick a feat and a utility.&nbsp; What, not everyone look at a different table to see what you got?&nbsp; That's huge.&nbsp; [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] made a point like that recently.&nbsp; That 'simplicity' is often more about familiarity.&nbsp; The way the Knight/Slayer/Thief were distorted to avoid choosing a power and instead using an MBA and looking up the attack/damage under the weapon, not the power -&nbsp; all the time seemed a lot more about making the martial characters 'not cast spells' and 'just hit da orc wit ma ax' than any actual simplification.&nbsp; I saw it was returning players a lot.&nbsp; &quot;I'll play a fighter, they're simple to start.&quot; (Actually, an archer ranger would be simpler.)&nbsp; &quot;Hey, where's my ax on this sheet? I need to see how much damage I do.&quot; (Pick a power, it's all on the power)&nbsp; &quot;So for attack, what do add, my strength modifier, what else?&quot;&nbsp; (Still all already calculated for you, on the power.)&nbsp; &nbsp;Meh.&nbsp; Just designing the pre-build powers like power attack... &quot;...when you hit...&quot;&nbsp; takes care of most of that. &nbsp;The idea is they'd be balanced choices, as most power choices weren't too badly balanced, and, the privilege of spamming the same encounter or daily would kinda make up for it, anyway.&nbsp;It would be tough to balance the MBA-enhancing stances with the full game and all it's little MBA-enhancing feats and items, and to balance that with the Slayer's basically OP fighter chassis and striker damage, including the double-dip-DEX-to-damage exploit.&nbsp; But, all that is tough to balance because it's intentionally badly balanced to begin with, to make up for lack of versatility and dailies.&nbsp; A pre-built fighter with simplified powers wouldn't have any of those issues.&nbsp; It'd be a Knight, not a Slayer, because marking, but hey, alternate class feature or two...One innovation that wasn't completely whacked was changing Roles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7042804, member: 996"] It also has the choices 'which stance' and 'do I use Power Attack,' and, later, utilities. A pre-build, especially one with custom powers designed for that purpose, could probably have been reduced to what weapon do I draw, who do I hit with it, and how hard through both an encounter and daily version of power attack. It could've been simpler than the Slayer in play. What's more, as you got used to it, you could branch out when you felt like it seamlessly, and you'd've become familiar with the AEDU progression and resource management in the process. Rather than feeling like that's all you know how to play and getting stuck in a rut. People under-rate how much consistency simplifies things. The first 4e campaign I played in, I was stunned the first few times we leveled, at how clear & simple it all was. You'e all 2nd level, pick a feat and a utility. What, not everyone look at a different table to see what you got? That's huge. [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] made a point like that recently. That 'simplicity' is often more about familiarity. The way the Knight/Slayer/Thief were distorted to avoid choosing a power and instead using an MBA and looking up the attack/damage under the weapon, not the power - all the time seemed a lot more about making the martial characters 'not cast spells' and 'just hit da orc wit ma ax' than any actual simplification. I saw it was returning players a lot. "I'll play a fighter, they're simple to start." (Actually, an archer ranger would be simpler.) "Hey, where's my ax on this sheet? I need to see how much damage I do." (Pick a power, it's all on the power) "So for attack, what do add, my strength modifier, what else?" (Still all already calculated for you, on the power.) Meh. Just designing the pre-build powers like power attack... "...when you hit..." takes care of most of that. The idea is they'd be balanced choices, as most power choices weren't too badly balanced, and, the privilege of spamming the same encounter or daily would kinda make up for it, anyway. It would be tough to balance the MBA-enhancing stances with the full game and all it's little MBA-enhancing feats and items, and to balance that with the Slayer's basically OP fighter chassis and striker damage, including the double-dip-DEX-to-damage exploit. But, all that is tough to balance because it's intentionally badly balanced to begin with, to make up for lack of versatility and dailies. A pre-built fighter with simplified powers wouldn't have any of those issues. It'd be a Knight, not a Slayer, because marking, but hey, alternate class feature or two... One innovation that wasn't completely whacked was changing Roles. [/QUOTE]

Verification