Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6558531" data-attributes="member: 27160">Sorry for voting for more than three - I voted before reading the thread to avoid inhertied bias...One I would keep on a 'list of 3', though, was the &quot;other&quot;. The things I most rate about 4E are the maths and powers (for all classes), but not really for &quot;consistency&quot;. My main love is the explicitness. The designers were explicit about the maths so that player groups can use it and morph it if they must to create the game they want. Power effects are explicit so that the game does not become an enforced &quot;beauty contest&quot; where, if the GM likes* your idea it will succeed (albeit you might need to make a roll), but if they dislike* your idea it will likely fail (&quot;well, you need an athletics check to catch up to where the giant is, followed by acrobatics to jump on his back and a STR and a DEX check to stay on. Then roll your attack - but you get a -4 modifier because he's thrashing about&quot;).The other &quot;other&quot; is the standard mechanisms that can be adapted to so much. The disease track. The skill challenge mechanisms. Hirelings, companion characters and so on.Some of the execution was a bit &quot;off&quot; - I am in the process of revamping the multiclass (by feat) system, and then I plan on banning Hybrids and using the multiclassing to build a 4E Birthright mechanism around. It's tough to hammer out the wrinkles, but so much is possible within the framework given.*: By &quot;like&quot; and &quot;dislike&quot;, I mean to include all the various reasons generally given. Beliefs about how the world works (it &quot;makes sense&quot; for it to be like this...) and borrowed tropes from favourite films are especially included.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6558531, member: 27160"] Sorry for voting for more than three - I voted before reading the thread to avoid inhertied bias... One I would keep on a 'list of 3', though, was the "other". The things I most rate about 4E are the maths and powers (for all classes), but not really for "consistency". My main love is the explicitness. The designers were explicit about the maths so that player groups can use it and morph it if they must to create the game they want. Power effects are explicit so that the game does not become an enforced "beauty contest" where, if the GM likes* your idea it will succeed (albeit you might need to make a roll), but if they dislike* your idea it will likely fail ("well, you need an athletics check to catch up to where the giant is, followed by acrobatics to jump on his back and a STR and a DEX check to stay on. Then roll your attack - but you get a -4 modifier because he's thrashing about"). The other "other" is the standard mechanisms that can be adapted to so much. The disease track. The skill challenge mechanisms. Hirelings, companion characters and so on. Some of the execution was a bit "off" - I am in the process of revamping the multiclass (by feat) system, and then I plan on banning Hybrids and using the multiclassing to build a 4E Birthright mechanism around. It's tough to hammer out the wrinkles, but so much is possible within the framework given. *: By "like" and "dislike", I mean to include all the various reasons generally given. Beliefs about how the world works (it "makes sense" for it to be like this...) and borrowed tropes from favourite films are especially included. [/QUOTE]

Verification