Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Forrester" data-source="post: 4272158" data-attributes="member: 1279">Dude, how can you be so reasonable half the time and such a pain in the ass the other half? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I never meant to imply that bards were alone in the ability to buff the entire party -- what I meant was that it was their forte, that the way many played them was to stand back and sing out buffs while others attacked. And as you well know, the wizard usually started off with a haste but then started blasting, and the paladin could radiate a buff while attacking at the same time. Bards were more likely to spend rounds not directly attacking. The healer-cleric, of course, also took that role, and it's true that in 4E the healer-cleric isn't just standing around healing people any longer . . . perhaps that's a shame, that it's not even an *option* for the poor souls who actually liked that kind of thing. As I recall, the cleric has zero at-will heal/cure abilities other than the two minors per encounter; if he wants to help, he's got to attack. I can see that leaving a bad taste in some simulationist/immersive roleplayer mouths. I'll agree with you on your last point -- the friend in question is a whiny bitch <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. Yeah, he may get used to it. And I can see why the designers did what they did, and think that it will improve the gaming experience of many. BUT . . . from a role-playing perspective, you can't argue that there are some who conceive of their character's role as standing in the back, shouting encouragement and protecting/inspiring their allies in whatever way the situation calls for, without having to deal with the oddity of only being able to do that by making what seems to be an entirely-unrelated-to-the-purpose attack roll against some target. Maybe the 4E conceit of "attack X to help Y" will settle in, and eventually cause less pain to simulationist/roleplayer brains. Maybe not. After all, much of 4E hurts both simulationist and roleplayer brains -- small creatures move as fast as big creatures, and grapple just as well as them; people make physical attacks off of non-physical attributes; some creatures and characters get benefits when they do stuff that 'realistically' should hurt instead of help them; characters have powers that can push, pull, or slide a colossal dragon or gelatinous cube just as easily (and just as far) as a retarded kobold; and so on. That's a lot of scary changes for many, a lot of sacrifices made in the name of game balance and game flow and in making combat more interesting without being onerous. 4E piles all these changes up, and on top of it tells players like my friend that the only way he can play a support character is to choose a character type that is attacking most of the time -- but he should suck it up, after all, his attacks provide a positive side-effect for his allies. I can appreciate the 'meh' he feels. I'm a recovering simulationist; some of the 4E changes annoy me more than others, but in general I think 4E is a positive step forward, and that what has been added to the game outweighs what has been taken away. But I don't think 4E will break if we create a class or two with more utility options, so that players who want to, can do something other than attack most rounds. Okay, must go do work . . . PS I wanted to note I agree with something you implied earlier - that when thinking about new classes (or feats, or magic items, or whatever), we should try to remain true to 4E mechanics. For instance, effect durations are now one round, 'sustained', or enounter-based -- meaning no creating a Bard feature where some buff lasts two rounds after he stops singing, like back in the old days. Similarly, if it really is true there aren't any bennies relying on half ability-bonuses, as you say, then IMO that's sufficient reason to recast the benefit in a different way, making it a flat bonus, or equal to the full ability bonus, or whatever. And no exploits/spells/prayers/songs that have parallels for other classes at much higher or lower levels (at least, not yet, until we're sure what's reasonably powered and what sucks.) However, IMO all of these things are tied to rules mechanics. The 4E conceit of attack-to-help is less a mechanic and more of a convention designed to keep everyone in the action -- which means I don't mind bending it quite a bit. PPS I don't have the book in front of me so I can't tell you you're wrong about the warlord -- that will come later, promise.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I think he has one at-will power that allows a buddy to attack an extra time, and another non-utility power that doesn't require an attack, and that's about it for non-utilities that help folks without hurting other folks. I guess it's a start, but it's still a ways away from the concept in question.</blockquote>

Verification