Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9315447" data-attributes="member: 6790260">4e powers are not nearly as repetitious as you claim. A few--marks, Leader heals--all have the same form because it's actually good, useful, productive for them to have the same form. Beyond that, it really isn't this field of seventeen perfectly identical powers at every level, the way you make it sound. At-wills do tend to be simpler...beacuse they have to be, that's literally their function, to be basic fallbacks. You aren't going to trim out more than a tiny percentage of powers by going after at-wills.How, exactly, do you propose this "and make them scaling" stuff, anyway? Because now you're doing exactly what I described. These so-called "generic" powers now have to have riders for every single class--or a laundry list of keywords, which were already borderline excessive in the 4e we actually got and would become horrendously bloated under this system--and pack in different level scaling for every single class meant to make use of them to fit whatever that class's design needs are. It's just not tenable.And...what powers are you even referring to? We all know Twin Strike is a thing, and yes, Dual Strike is pretty much the same, but beyond that, I'm not seeing it. For example, what is "Zephyr Strike"? My sources don't show any power with "Zephyr" in its name that has anything to do with hitting twice. "Whirling Strike" doesn't exist, but "Whirling Rend" does...and it works quite differently (your off-hand damage targets a different creature, so you need two targets, and it has a Barbarian-only rider, namely +Dex damage if you're raging.) Which describes precisely what I mean: folks dismiss the actually relevant, mechanical distinctions and just write it off as "oh it's a use-both-weapons attack, therefore it should be one common power for everyone." No! That's precisely what would ruin the design, making it an ugly, messy, samey hodgepodge!As for the Wizard specifically, it was just that it got lots, and LOTS, and LOTS of powers over time. The only class that could even potentially rival the Wizard for how much support it got is Fighter, and I'm pretty sure Wizard still has Fighter beat on nearly every metric--number of builds/subclasses, feats, PPs, etc. Purely because of sheer numbers, Wizard has a lot of cruft in it--something Heinsoo explicitly called out as a thing he'd been fighting against during 4e's design and playtesting, the constant push to make Wizard just a little better than every other class.</blockquote>

Verification