|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 10:22AM
#111
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
The fun part of E or Encounter powers, is that the player is given strong mechanical encouragement to do something different each round rather than strong mechanical encouragement to pick the best possible option from your At-wills.
IMO, being forced to always do something different is unacceptable.
My players really hated the fact that they could not use the same encounter power more than once. It was a limitation that I had to house rule out of our 4e game by using encounter points.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 11:05AM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
The fun part of E or Encounter powers, is that the player is given strong mechanical encouragement to do something different each round rather than strong mechanical encouragement to pick the best possible option from your At-wills.
IMO, being forced to always do something different is unacceptable.
My players really hated the fact that they could not use the same encounter power more than once. It was a limitation that I had to house rule out of our 4e game by using encounter points.
4e is not the primary game of your group, though, correct?
I'm not really talking about why everyone should see Encounter powers as fun. I'm talking about why MDD is really modified Essential Slayer or Thief rather than core 4e.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 11:12AM
#113
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
The fun part of E or Encounter powers, is that the player is given strong mechanical encouragement to do something different each round rather than strong mechanical encouragement to pick the best possible option from your At-wills.
IMO, being forced to always do something different is unacceptable.
My players really hated the fact that they could not use the same encounter power more than once. It was a limitation that I had to house rule out of our 4e game by using encounter points.
4e is not the primary game of your group, though, correct?
I'm not really talking about why everyone should see Encounter powers as fun. I'm talking about why MDD is really modified Essential Slayer or Thief rather than core 4e.
actually with the changes hinted at for the next packet with a non refreshing pool it much more coincides with the AEDU power structure than just at wills. even solving some of the problems inherent to the AEDU system.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 11:19AM
#114
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Yes we should support spamming in all its form... I can reflavor even identical tricks to different methods it really wont feel like spam the only remaining complaint ends up being that over powered individual moves become the only moves.... Well dont make overpowered moves. Tadah a real fix.
Oh yes and make more powerful things situational so that even if I can spam it .. they are only desireable to do so entirely because the DM has arranged for it.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 11:30AM
#115
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
The fun part of E or Encounter powers, is that the player is given strong mechanical encouragement to do something different each round rather than strong mechanical encouragement to pick the best possible option from your At-wills.
IMO, being forced to always do something different is unacceptable.
My players really hated the fact that they could not use the same encounter power more than once. It was a limitation that I had to house rule out of our 4e game by using encounter points.
4e is not the primary game of your group, though, correct?
I'm not really talking about why everyone should see Encounter powers as fun. I'm talking about why MDD is really modified Essential Slayer or Thief rather than core 4e.
actually with the changes hinted at for the next packet with a non refreshing pool it much more coincides with the AEDU power structure than just at wills. even solving some of the problems inherent to the AEDU system.
Because Psionic Power Points were so popular in 4e?
The problem with being able to use encounter options repeatedly is that they then need to be extremely well balanced. And the easiest way to keep things balanced is to make them not particularly interesting.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 11:49AM
#116
|
|
|
Because Psionic Power Points were so popular in 4e?
The problem with being able to use encounter options repeatedly is that they then need to be extremely well balanced. And the easiest way to keep things balanced is to make them not particularly interesting.
To be fair, I think that 4e psionics would have gone over a lot better had they not misaimed quite so much in terms of the relative value of boosting lower-level powers and higher-level powers, particularly on the Psion itself. (For those not familiar with the system, in 4e Power Points were an encounter resource that were used to boost at-will powers. The Psion got access to new at-will powers every few levels. Higher-level at-will powers cost several times more PP to boost, but had larger effects for boosting. The problem was that using a boosted low-level power a few times was generally way, way better than using a boosted high-level power once. Combined with the fact that some of the psion's best powers were level one powers, it meant that one of the most mechanically attractive things to do as a psion was to spend your entire career using a single power.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 12:11PM
#117
|
|
|
Because Psionic Power Points were so popular in 4e?
The problem with being able to use encounter options repeatedly is that they then need to be extremely well balanced. And the easiest way to keep things balanced is to make them not particularly interesting.
To be fair, I think that 4e psionics would have gone over a lot better had they not misaimed quite so much in terms of the relative value of boosting lower-level powers and higher-level powers, particularly on the Psion itself. (For those not familiar with the system, in 4e Power Points were an encounter resource that were used to boost at-will powers. The Psion got access to new at-will powers every few levels. Higher-level at-will powers cost several times more PP to boost, but had larger effects for boosting. The problem was that using a boosted low-level power a few times was generally way, way better than using a boosted high-level power once. Combined with the fact that some of the psion's best powers were level one powers, it meant that one of the most mechanically attractive things to do as a psion was to spend your entire career using a single power.)
I agree that the 4e Psionic system would have been more acceptable if the designers (Mearls among them) had been better at math. I don't mean for that to be a personal attack, but the 4e Psionic System was obviously broken at release. And one of the elements that contributed to that break was a misguided attempt to force point point inflation as a means of emulating the feel of previous systems. Looking at DDN, I'm unsure if the designers have learned anything yet from these past mistakes.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 12:29PM
#118
|
|
|
Yes we should support spamming in all its form... I can reflavor even identical tricks to different methods it really wont feel like spam the only remaining complaint ends up being that over powered individual moves become the only moves.... Well dont make overpowered moves. Tadah a real fix.
Oh yes and make more powerful things situational so that even if I can spam it .. they are only desireable to do so entirely because the DM has arranged for it.
I sense a hint of sarcasm in this post.
I actually like this idea. There aren't that many things that aren't situational. You basically have more damage, more accuracy and more defense. Those are your best options most of the time. And since these three options would be a tax if you have to select them, you might as well give them to every single martial class and keep the situational maneuvers as options.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 1:01PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Yes we should support spamming in all its form... I can reflavor even identical tricks to different methods it really wont feel like spam the only remaining complaint ends up being that over powered individual moves become the only moves.... Well dont make overpowered moves. Tadah a real fix.
Oh yes and make more powerful things situational so that even if I can spam it .. they are only desireable to do so entirely because the DM has arranged for it.
I sense a hint of sarcasm in this post.
I actually like this idea. There aren't that many things that aren't situational. You basically have more damage, more accuracy and more defense. Those are your best options most of the time. And since these three options would be a tax if you have to select them, you might as well give them to every single martial class and keep the situational maneuvers as options.
I am going admit I started with sarcasm so your senses are not decieving and I did indeed change my mind and went with inspiration instead. It goes with spell casting as well ofcourse. - and I realized a while back that my "using" the spell casters action economy to inhibit the five minute work day trick could be leveraged to enable what amounts to slotless / manafree - long term tracking free yet balanced magic.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 15, 2013 - 1:56PM
#120
|
|
|
It doesn't work both ways. One is completely exclusionary. The other pleases both camps, since the rules are optional. That's like saying if they remove everything but one race and class, the ones that leave aren't worth keeping.
It can get exclusionary both ways. If martial healing is included as an option: feats or swapable class features, everybody should be happy. If martial healing is automatically part of the warlord class with nothing to replace it, then you'll exclude the leader of men from my games. There are some very unreasonable childish people in both camps. Some will want all warlords to have martial healing just to make a point (4th edition did it the right way), others won't even want the option to appear in the book. My opinion, screw both. It's just one of those things we'll never agree on so we might as well make sure that both can coexist.
It's when the developers exclude something that specifically works under the rules, and they have no good reason for doing so, that it becomes an issue.
They're not consistent with their own definition of hit points. How can you possibly believe that hit points are not meat in a game where the only attacks that deal damage are those that have a chance of physically injuring you? You did notice that bull rush and sleep don't deal hit point damage? Why is that?
Tip: because even those that want martial healing are against it (strange). I suggested it once and it was one of the first times that fans of all editions agreed.
People leaving because their style of play is left out are a lot more rational than people leaving because something they don't have to use is present.
Let's not overdo it  . Martial healing is not a style of play! The martial healing rage is more a symptom. D&D Next is light years away from 4th edition. That's the real issue with D&D Next because there is a whole subset of playstyles that only existed in 4th edition. When Mearls says martial healing is out, it's just another step in the wrong direction for these fans. It's going to take a lot more than martial healing to make the game enjoyable for those that actually like the 4th edition playstyles. And frankly, I doubt that minor considerations such as NADs, consolidated skill lists or martial healing are what defines these playstyles. 4th edition would have been just as enjoyable for these fans if the warlord had magical healing.
|
|
|
