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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3747573" data-attributes="member: 2011">I'm pretty concerned with the "bigger, badder, better" syndrome.So far, we have what appears to be full round attacks during a surprise round (it actually looks like full round attacks can be done as standard actions in 4E).We have multiple non-movement actions by players every round.We have an ability that grants +2 to saves and also grants an additional save when activated (unless the entangle itself did that, but unlikely).And winning a fight without breaking a sweat.One attacker both attacking and giving an ally a bonus to attack with the same maneuver.All of this sounds a bit "bigger, badder, broken" to me. Not that it is broken, but it has the sound of making the DMs job real difficult.The more options the PCs have every round, the more options the DM has to remember and account for. Plus, it is likely that the NPCs will have more options each round as well. That could be a lot of bookkeeping.I'm not judging this yet, but I am observing that it's sounding a lot like Bo9S on steroids.I used to have several players who forgot to add +1 to their AC for the Dodge feat and we even made up 3x5 cards to remind them. I currently have a player in my group who forgets to flank. All of the options available in a round of 4E combat might just swamp him, regardless of class. Just because playtesters at WotC who live and breathe this stuff every single day can easily handle 3 or more actions per PC and NPC per round and buffs to fellow allies every round does not mean that every player out there will be able to easily handle it.The introduction of swift actions and immediate actions added a level of additional "worthwhile" actions per round into 3.5. However, they were somewhat few and far between for most classes. For 4E, it sounds like their equivalent will become commonplace every round for most likely, every class.</blockquote>

Verification