Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4210560" data-attributes="member: 2067">Same Stuff, Different Description.Tactics can only come from mastery of the rules -- knowing how they interact and how what you can do affects them. This mastery is acquired mostly through familiarity -- reading the rules, delving into them, finding out the different fiddly bits you can tweak in combat.Its not about being designed to be less effective in the first place, its about how a character becomes more effective by learning what they're capable of. If tactics are frequently rewarded, then to remain challenging to those who use great tactics, you will need to have more powerful challenges.These more powerful challenges will hose anyone who DOESN'T use these advanced tactics.Leading to &quot;LOL Newb!&quot; and &quot;Accidental Suck.&quot;If Controllers are somehow &quot;more tactical&quot; than other roles, they require more rules mastery to use effectively, and thus, against challenges that are actually a challenge for anyone with that rules mastery, someone who doesn't have that rules mastery will be at a disadvantage. And people generally don't play games where they are made to feel dumb and ineffective for very long.And if that's one of the reasons that they only included one controller in the PH, then 4e has kind of catastrophically failed to address one of the major issues with 3e.Note that I don't think that's the reason.I think the reason has more to do with them conciously making an alternative to the Cleric, but being so myopically focused on that, they didn't think to provide an alternative to the Wizard, because another one of their doctrines was not to conciously fill every power source/role match-up, but to instead let those chips fall as they may.In short, I think whoever released the &quot;Give me an alternative to the Cleric in 4e!&quot; memo completely missed the fact that its a potential problem with all the roles, not just the leader.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4210560, member: 2067"] Same Stuff, Different Description. Tactics can only come from mastery of the rules -- knowing how they interact and how what you can do affects them. This mastery is acquired mostly through familiarity -- reading the rules, delving into them, finding out the different fiddly bits you can tweak in combat. Its not about being designed to be less effective in the first place, its about how a character becomes more effective by learning what they're capable of. If tactics are frequently rewarded, then to remain challenging to those who use great tactics, you will need to have more powerful challenges. These more powerful challenges will hose anyone who DOESN'T use these advanced tactics. Leading to "LOL Newb!" and "Accidental Suck." If Controllers are somehow "more tactical" than other roles, they require more rules mastery to use effectively, and thus, against challenges that are actually a challenge for anyone with that rules mastery, someone who doesn't have that rules mastery will be at a disadvantage. And people generally don't play games where they are made to feel dumb and ineffective for very long. And if that's one of the reasons that they only included one controller in the PH, then 4e has kind of catastrophically failed to address one of the major issues with 3e. Note that I don't think that's the reason. I think the reason has more to do with them conciously making an alternative to the Cleric, but being so myopically focused on that, they didn't think to provide an alternative to the Wizard, because another one of their doctrines was not to conciously fill every power source/role match-up, but to instead let those chips fall as they may. In short, I think whoever released the "Give me an alternative to the Cleric in 4e!" memo completely missed the fact that its a potential problem with all the roles, not just the leader. [/QUOTE]

Verification