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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5748154" data-attributes="member: 54710">Two of the recurring criticisms of 4e are that (1) the in-game fiction is only loosely tied to the mechanics and (2) all the classes are too similar because powers are insufficiently differentiated and the at-will/encounter/daily/utility power structure is shared by all of the initial classes.  Although the post-Essentials design has shown how classes can be better differentiated, there is at least some merit to the idea that powers are too similar.  One response is to return to a 3.x model of distinct spells and class abilities, but this would have the considerable cost of losing the consistent format and presentation that powers provide.I posit that 4e-style power mechanics can be more tightly tied to the in-game fiction and that powers can be better differentiated by adding back in some carefully chosen idiosyncrasies to the powers.  In some cases, well-chosen keywords could be added into the power descriptions.  For example, the Disruptable keyword could be added to, for example, most arcane daily powers.  Such powers would provoke opportunity attacks and a hit during the use of that power would cause it to fail.  A Verbal keyword could require speaking out loud -- preventing use of the power if gagged or silenced and negating stealth (even if it's a utility power).  Other powers could require free use of hands.  Alternatively, available magic (or mundane) items could be relevant.  For example, psionic powers might be characterized by being neither disruptable nor requiring verbal actions, but a lead-lined helm might provide protection (at the cost of mobility/sensing?) against these powers?The idea is to provide a better mechanical hook to the in-game fiction.  Combined with a more standardized list of powers, players would have a better idea of how the rules work based on the in-game fiction in a way where fictional weakness are more exploitable.  One of my favorite moments in 2e was when a 7th level PC thief was confronted by an 18th level NPC wizard who found the thief in his basement.  A very (rules-loose) grappling contest followed, with the wizard being dispatched by being rolled onto his own Symbol of Death.  I don't think all wizards should be easily made useless, but it would be nice if being gagged or grappled was a more serious restriction for an arcane caster than some other character.Obviously, this would add complexity to the game, but I think it would fit well into the "advanced" part of a basic/expert/advanced sequence.  Also, I'm not proposing any specific rules (the examples are just that -- examples), just presenting an approach to marrying a consistent powers presentation to mechanics that emphasize the in-game fiction more strongly than existing 4e.Thoughts?-KS</blockquote>

Verification