Search results

A knee-jerk emotional response is usually ignorant or missing the point. If you had a valid complaint there would be more to it. 4E classes do not play the same, any 4E veteran could tell you that, and there is more differentiation within the deep 4E classes like Fighter, Wizard, and Clerics...

They're built similarly, but they are very different in play. It's basically a statement shrouded in ignorance, or missing the point(4E isn't a game about strategic resource management). In comparison, classes in AD&D/3.x/5E are often built very differently, but are far more samey in play...

I'm not actively trying to inflict damage on 5E. Online, I might state my negative opinions on it in threads discussing 5E's place in the gaming world, and in the FLGS I will tend to say negative things about it to new players and recommend 4E, 13th Age, and even Pathfinder instead. That's about...

I hold a bit of a grudge against WotC for how they ran 4E into the ground. I hold more than a bit of a grudge against 3.x/PF and OSR edition warriors. Given that, 5E's failure is something I will take some level of satisfaction from. As for the game itself, I think 5E is boring and meh, and...

It depends on the context.

Its difficult to speculate on D&D's future without knowing what WotC's goals for it are. Given WotC's track record, I expect that whatever those goals are 5E will fall short of them and WotC will respond in panic. They've said that their goal was to unify D&D and bring it back underneath one...

Did you come here to this thread just to say that?

Is ENworld really the place to drag a personal feud from another forum?

Is it the official policy of theRPGsite to stalk me wherever I go and post that tired old thing?

They even admit that they expect using the system to throw balance out the window, just like 2E skills and powers. For those of us who want a 3E/4E level of character customization, how is 5E supposed to cater to us?

I feel the same way exactly. Their description of the tactical module combined with base 5E is not what I want out of a game at all. Their description of build your own subclass as the height of character customization is similarly disappointing, given how little subclasses actually do from what...

The magic of 4E combat came from powers and roles, not a grid system and a generic combat chapter. You aren't going to manage 4E style play with the core classes.

Any issue I may or may not have with the stat requirements would pale in comparison to the pure, unbridled hatred I have for 3E-style multiclassing itself.

Warlord isn't a class, spelled out in specific language. Guess we stick with 4E or check out 13th age or Exalted 3E.

We've been having a really good discussion similar to this thread going on over at the WotC forums: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29803827/The_Main_Problem_of_DDN._And_A_History_Lesson

Options do not automatically mean good options. The healing options given in the packets were arbitrary and rather lame. I'd like to see healing options that enable combat as sport on the level that 4E enabled it.

Tanis and Laurana from Dragonlance, especially Laurana. Agammemnon(Warlord) vs. Achilles(Fighter). Boromir from LotR, and innovatively I'd include Warlord(the lazy kind) as the least inappropriate class to pin on Frodo. From Game of Thrones, Tyrion and Daenerys.

Um, no HP and healing determine the pace and feel of the whole game, particularly whether the game is combat as war or combat as sport. You can't just slap together something at the last minute and call it good design, or add in some arbitrary modularity without addressing how HP and healing...

They've committed, but to tradition. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids traditionally have near infinite options. Everybody else gets the shaft. Because tradition. Also, because magic.

I think the Warlord issues are a bigger deal in regards to the bigger picture(throwing 4E fans under the bus, how healing is to work system-wide) than any issues specific to just the Warlord.