Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5748467" data-attributes="member: 1210">These are two valid complaints, but I think your guys' proposals go too far in regressing towards the bad points of the old days. For instance: IMHO this is terrible. One of the very best things about 4e is that wizards never run out of spells. There's no good reason to roll it back, especially in a way that once again strongly promotes a ten-minute adventuring day and class imbalance. No thank you.That said, the basic idea of differentiating power sources more and adding flavor to powers is a good one, but not if it has a significant cost in terms of mechanical complexity, option bloat or increased difficulty in learning the game. If power source keywords had more meaning, that would be a start. I mean, they don't really do anything in the game. When was the last time it mattered if a power was divine or arcane? I'll tell you when- 3e. I agree with this, all the "advanced" talk aside. There are much much better ways to make additional complexity pay off, to my mine. And there are many areas where option bloat could be substantially reduced- there's no real reason that there can't be some basic powers shared by multiple classes, for instance, especially when right now some powers' only real difference is the class name on them.</blockquote>