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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5606071" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, required... there could be a number of reasons why a version roll could be required, OTOH 4e is obviously a playable game and I am not at all trying to suggest it HAS to be changed (or really even that it should be or will be) just that it COULD be and there are some things to be gained in some sense from doing so. Right, which is why a discussion of the pros and cons is interesting. I don't think I necessarily would even say I 'disagree' with scaling attack bonus. It is easy enough to see what motivated its inclusion in the game, and it is often very difficult when designing any complex system to see the ramifications of various decisions ahead of time. I'd expect nobody even thought of the possibility of a flat to-hit, it is rather out in left field.  Less options is the answer to bloat, but where do many of those options originate from? They exist because it is necessary to maintain the sliding scale of attacks, or 'fix the math' in places where the scale didn't work as it should have. Certainly that isn't the only contributor to bloat, but every little bit adds up. You can't loose 50 pounds except one pound at a time, and you only lose by subtracting things. So the obvious strategy is to look for things to subtract. IMHO I found one. Yes, and again many of the additions and complexifications actually trace themselves back to the scaling to-hit bonus. I know this isn't clear until you really examine the game closely, but it actually is the case (again IMHO). There are all sorts of feats and other 'glue' elements of the game that exist simply to deal with odd corner cases where scaling fails or where people want to build characters that are not quite what the devs envisaged and fall off the scaling bandwagon (like for instance the ranged warlord build which only has to exist because every class can only viably use one stat for to-hit bonuses). The feats needed to make a bow using cleric, special items like Euphonic Bows, weaplements, and quite a lot of other such dross which actually adds very little to the game conceptually but has to exist simply so that you can acquire the right scaling. In fact pretty much every time a new concept comes along it has to be attached to a whole slew of mechanical baggage who's only real purpose is to provide the correct scaling. Thus scaling is responsible for a LARGE amount of the build-side complexity of the game. As I say though, complexity, feature bloat, etc really (again IMHO) is right at the very core of what 'ails' 4e. It is a hugely heavyweight system with masses of 'glue' features who's main purpose is to deal with scaling. Why do primal classes all require special class features so they can wear light armor, AND added feats that (actually fail to) help fix the situation when even the class features didn't cut it? I will totally agree that jettisoning scaling isn't going to magically cut out all the bloat, by any means, but it would vastly simplify class design, do away with a lot of cruft that has no other basic purpose except to fix something that doesn't need to exist, etc. You have to start somewhere, and without making some tweaks to the engine of 4e my contention is you could scrap every single class, item, pp, ed, feat, power, etc and start over and you'd still inevitably end up pretty much right back where you are now eventually.Eh, anyway, I've hogged enough of this thread. Maybe I'll put one up somewhere where we can talk about it if people are interested. I'm sure there is plenty more that could be said on the subject.</blockquote>

Verification