Ltheb Silverfrond
Explorer
I must say, I am impressed by many of the things 4E has done. It scales pretty darn well, and its fun to play. I playtested some stuff the other night. First time I ever had fun playtesting anything. (Usually its just hell to remember 50 billion things)
3E did many things right.
It streamlined the game compared to previous editions. (no more consulting 100 gazillion tables, or backwards AC progressions, or D% rolls)
It presented an easily adaptable system that could, with a bit of elbow grease, apply to anything. (Sci-fi, Fantasy, Modern, Horror, Etc)
It also was, and still is, one of the few game systems where the monsters and PCs play by the same rules. (usually)
Strategy levels were also quite high as preparing for a battle before hand was more important then the tactics that went into it. (Since in 3E Fighter tactics = Charge in, then full attack until it dies)
4E seems like a nice extension of 3E.
It further streamlines the game.
(Everything being presented in the same format makes things really easy to run or design; Non-combat things, like professions and the like are left to GMs because no rule will ever cover every situation)
It is adaptable. (you can easily have psionics, or Wuxia, or even modern)
And while monsters and PCs play by the same rules, they are not built by them, so If theres a kind of monster or encounter you want to model, you are not restricted to plugging tables and getting a result you didn't intend. (Like a Marilith being forced to use large-sized weapons due to it's size, when its arms should only medium...)
Tactics are in a much higher quantity then strategy, since the game is most action packed during combat, why not make them more exciting and meaningful?
Whatever the reason, whether we like or dislike 3E or 4E and how much, is a choice each of us must make. I personally think its too early to judge, but I like what I see as far as 4E goes. It takes everything I like about 3E, and over all makes it more fun. I can still run my same old low-magic, high-adventure/intrigue setting in 4E, with next to no Retcon. But with 4E, its more fun to play. (For me at least, your results may vary.)
3E did many things right.
It streamlined the game compared to previous editions. (no more consulting 100 gazillion tables, or backwards AC progressions, or D% rolls)
It presented an easily adaptable system that could, with a bit of elbow grease, apply to anything. (Sci-fi, Fantasy, Modern, Horror, Etc)
It also was, and still is, one of the few game systems where the monsters and PCs play by the same rules. (usually)
Strategy levels were also quite high as preparing for a battle before hand was more important then the tactics that went into it. (Since in 3E Fighter tactics = Charge in, then full attack until it dies)
4E seems like a nice extension of 3E.
It further streamlines the game.
(Everything being presented in the same format makes things really easy to run or design; Non-combat things, like professions and the like are left to GMs because no rule will ever cover every situation)
It is adaptable. (you can easily have psionics, or Wuxia, or even modern)
And while monsters and PCs play by the same rules, they are not built by them, so If theres a kind of monster or encounter you want to model, you are not restricted to plugging tables and getting a result you didn't intend. (Like a Marilith being forced to use large-sized weapons due to it's size, when its arms should only medium...)
Tactics are in a much higher quantity then strategy, since the game is most action packed during combat, why not make them more exciting and meaningful?
Whatever the reason, whether we like or dislike 3E or 4E and how much, is a choice each of us must make. I personally think its too early to judge, but I like what I see as far as 4E goes. It takes everything I like about 3E, and over all makes it more fun. I can still run my same old low-magic, high-adventure/intrigue setting in 4E, with next to no Retcon. But with 4E, its more fun to play. (For me at least, your results may vary.)
