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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5591932" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the question that wants to be asked is what are the minimum number of choices that will let the player define their character adequately and distinguish it from other characters? Then what is the minimum number of choices that a character needs to be able to have during play in order to be able to make some tactically meaningful choices? That's what the game should aim for. It should also aim to reduce the amount of tracking that has to go on beyond that. Conditions were a good idea, but then somehow relying on them was quickly lost as a basic simplifying concept. Things should be more distinct. 4e relies on a lot of rather small individual benefits, effects, etc and demands that the player stack them up to achieve something really significant. I think a lesser number of larger and non-stacking options would work better. Instead of a power plus a feat plus another feat plus 2-3 items adding up to "I'm really good at X" just have an option "You're really good at X, when you clobber your enemy with X, he's hosed." As long as each of those things is somewhat situational and requires a bit of tactics to pull off it is a superior option. So, 'big bad axe wielding warrior' might simply be an option you take. When you whack someone with your big bad axe warrior daily power, you put a huge dent in them. When a couple minions run up you can kill them all with a big sweep of your axe. Make penalties and bonuses large but there are only a few of them. Trim back hit points a bit, make that one big killer blow really wreak havoc. Things will be a BIT more swingy but not much. The goal would be to make combat seem more like a skirmish and less like a chess game.</blockquote>

Verification