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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5748428" data-attributes="member: 996">'recurring' and 'valid' are two very different things.  It /is/ true that 'fiction' or 'fluff' is at most, losely tied to mechanics.  In the case of powers, it's explicitly divorced from mechanics.  The player is free to change the fluff of his powers, the mechanics stay the same.  That's a pretty complete disconnect.  And, it makes it much easier to write the rules of powers clearly, balance powers, /and/ it makes it much easier for players to differentiate thier characters through concept and description, prettymuch refuting the second point, /if/ that point even needed further refuting.But, point 2 is flatly false. There's nothing about a common structure that makes classes too similar in function or in concept.  It just makes them too not 3e.  Too balanced.  Too consistent.  Too easy to learn.  Too hard to abuse.That said, there is a valid side to the complaints, it just doesn't mean what the complainers want it to mean (that 4e sux and we must all play Pathfinder).The kernel of truth is that there is some degree of redundancy and bloat among 4e powers.  Too many powers within a given source are just re-named versions of another class's power.  To many Paragon and Epic tier powers are just upgraded versions of heroic powers with different names, meant to be swapped out.  The need for a hundred or so powers to flesh out a class makes creating new classes very difficult and leads to enormous power-bloat, which means more redundant powers and also makes each power potentially less memorable. Where to go with that, I'm not sure.  I'd think fewer classes, powers grouped by source, and role support taken out of powers and put into class features. :shrug:Some essentials classes are differentiated by arbitrary mechanical changes, but at the same time, they're redundant as the just re-tread the same conceptual ground.  The only difference between a Fighter(Knight) and Guardian Fighter is that the Knight uses less consistent, balanced, versatile, and interesting mechanics to blandly fill the same role using the same concept.  Differentiating classes by making some of them crap /is/ differentiating them 'better,' though, I can't argue with that.So, they're too simple?  Anyway, aside from attacking the complainers...</blockquote>

Verification