Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6648106" data-attributes="member: 82106">EVERY 4e power underscores what the common relation is. I could author right here and now on this page a 4e power block and everyone who has some experience with 4e will have an immediate idea of whether or not it falls within the conventional damage and effect envelope for a power of its type and level. Even minor variances will be noted and if it was something presented as homebrew for people's inspection a detailed critique would ensue in which the power was analyzed in charops style WRT its tactical utility, overall strengths and weakness vis-a-vis other powers, and whether it would be a useful addition to whatever class' repertoire of powers.Now, you could have the same discussion about a 5e spell, feat, class feature, whatever, but it would be a looser and more nebulous discussion without nearly as much clarity as to what is usual and how it would fit into the game.This is where 4e derives its understanding of power damage/effect trades and other related stuff. Every player will perforce be familiar with at least half-a-dozen powers even as a new starting player, so they are immediately exposed to these conventions, which cross all classes and levels. THAT is what forms the basis for these things and is the context of page 42. I think Sly Flourish did a great thing by adding explicit instructions to that process. This is what I mean when I say 5e failed to improve on 4e, and even moved back a bit. They could have copied page 42, with suitable number changes, and added something akin to Sly's adjustments, but nothing like that happened. I think the reason is twofold, they came to the, IMHO crazy, idea that 'vague is better', and they lacked a solid baseline to build those adjustments on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6648106, member: 82106"] EVERY 4e power underscores what the common relation is. I could author right here and now on this page a 4e power block and everyone who has some experience with 4e will have an immediate idea of whether or not it falls within the conventional damage and effect envelope for a power of its type and level. Even minor variances will be noted and if it was something presented as homebrew for people's inspection a detailed critique would ensue in which the power was analyzed in charops style WRT its tactical utility, overall strengths and weakness vis-a-vis other powers, and whether it would be a useful addition to whatever class' repertoire of powers. Now, you could have the same discussion about a 5e spell, feat, class feature, whatever, but it would be a looser and more nebulous discussion without nearly as much clarity as to what is usual and how it would fit into the game. This is where 4e derives its understanding of power damage/effect trades and other related stuff. Every player will perforce be familiar with at least half-a-dozen powers even as a new starting player, so they are immediately exposed to these conventions, which cross all classes and levels. THAT is what forms the basis for these things and is the context of page 42. I think Sly Flourish did a great thing by adding explicit instructions to that process. This is what I mean when I say 5e failed to improve on 4e, and even moved back a bit. They could have copied page 42, with suitable number changes, and added something akin to Sly's adjustments, but nothing like that happened. I think the reason is twofold, they came to the, IMHO crazy, idea that 'vague is better', and they lacked a solid baseline to build those adjustments on. [/QUOTE]

Verification