-
I don’t think too many books will be a problem. Remember, D&D 3.x issued individual books for each class with loads of new variations. The consolidation of these into three core books (Martial, Devine, Arcane) is a big step forward, while classes/powers/rituals/etc in the mainly DM orientated books like MoP, Open Grave etc will be up to the GM to include as they wish.
-
I agree a bit on conditions. I think some monsters, like the Gibbering Orb, go WAY too far, dazing guys every single turn and all manner of other dickery. I also up front don’t like stun. Not as a DM or as a PC. As a DM, it makes high level solos a joke. In the epic tier when a Solo should be a devastating force of nature, it feels like it’ll just be stunned with Legion or something else and be utterly destroyed. (Which is why I often give my very important guys immunity to Stun and Sleep, so they can’t just be invalidated instantly). As a player, Stun is terrible. Immobilize isn’t that bad, there are some things you can do as a melee character to prepare for that. But Stun is just, ugh.
I’m curious, which races do you think suffer most from lack of optimizeable choices? What would you do with them? I’m big on making my own races, and race balance and strength always interests me.
-
@Wyatt:
That’s a good point re: solo monsters and stun effects— I’d forgotten about that. It might not be *too* bad if those effects are “save ends,” if only because most solos appear to have ridiculously high save bonuses, meaning that the effect probably won’t last for much beyond a round.The more I think about it, the more I think I might be off-base on race/class combinations as far as stats are concerned. It might be worth sounding this out in a separate post, just to think out loud. On the other hand, maybe I can come up with something a little more systematic & simultaneously leverage my meager coding skills.
But basically it seems reasonable that every race should be a top-tier contender (e.g. 20/16) in one or two builds, and a second tier (e.g. 18/16) contender in a bigger number of others. I’m not sure whether that’s the case, but I suspect that some races fare better than others.
-
I think it would be interesting to see. Personally I’m not much of an optimizer. When I come up with a concept I just do it, without caring much about the numbers. With 4e I’ve noticed that this tends to work out for me – even in a party with some hardcore guys who get their act together much better than me, I don’t feel left behind, even if I am a Dwarf Wizard or an Elf Warlock. (As you said, with weapon-using classes, you can just pick a high-proficiency weapon and catch up pretty well.)
However, I don’t deny that those discrepancies do exist. My Dwarf Wizard capped at an 18 Int, at character generation, and that’s because I purchased it to start with! An Eladrin Wizard could easily have 2-4 points more than me, which is a +2 to hit and damage over what I could do. So I’d like to see a post going in-depth about these discrepancies, and whether they’re big downers, irrelevant, and if that bad, how to fix them. I’m working on a campaign setting with a whole roster of new core races, so this kind of information is really useful to me, and it’d be nice to hear it from somebody who doesn’t seem like the “hardcore optimizer” type. Somebody who can really speak to me. I think that’s you, if you’d be up for it. ;)

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://incrediblevehicle.com/2009/01/12/criticisms-of-4th-edition/trackback/