Search results

Right, you don't like it - you can start at level 2, or 3 or whichever level you prefer. I do like it, and I want to be able to have that experience. But you are mis-stating the arguments for it that I have just given: I enjoy it because it encourages a feeling of tension and danger that brings...

Yes, but the tension and danger of low-level play is a great deal of fun for many people. I think it should remain for two main reasons - first of all, I enjoy it; and secondly, it gives the game variety and better fits with the experiences of most editions of the game.

I'm not sure it's advisable; I enjoy a changing experience as I play; going from the weak end to the strong end, from a fragile character to a powerful one. This implies a change in how the game is played over time, and to an extent, to the mathematical nature of the game (from rocket-tag to...

I think this is one of those lessons from video games that just don't translate very well to RPGs, for most people. I think video games have specific design issues which are quite separate from role playing games. There are some lessons, yes, but they must be carefully teased out and applied...

Speaking purely for myself, I doubt it. I began playing BECMI, and played AD&D 1E, 2E, and 3E. None of them (in my experience) had the stark emphasis on the combat encounter that 4E has.

I have to say, I disagree. The incentive to take them is that you're then good at those skillls. The cost in taking them is that you're less good at what you're calling "combat" skills. It's a choice, and I appreciate that it may be a tough choice, but I enjoy the fact that it's one you should...

Yes, but not completely. The system provides massive support for excelling in combat, and much, much lesser support for excelling out of combat. In fact, it's very easy NOT to be good out of combat; it's very hard NOT to be good in combat. This is informative as to the system's priorities, which...

The central d20 mechanic. Unified level and xp for all races (except for favoured classes, which I think was a mistake). The idea of universal multiclassing (although the implementation wasn't perfect). OGL. Simplified saves. The idea of prestige classes (although again, the implementation was...

I like having a central power scale (1-20, 1-30, whatever it is), but there probably should be some capacity to extend beyond it, for those who want it. This was done (in my opinion) rather poorly for 3E. I think a new "epic level" book should bring in the fluff lessons from 4e - suggesting...

I think there might be some talking at cross-purposes here; I'm not saying 4E cannot run that kind of game and I don't think that's what Number48 is saying either. I'm suggesting it's not the kind of game that 4E encourages or is best for, and if it's that kind of D&D game you're after, there...

Fine, playing combat-weak characters is not for you! It's not for me, most of the time, I enjoy playing tough, combat capable characters as well! But it's nice to have the option, when I do feel like it, and having the option encourages a good mix of characters with varying degrees of ability in...

I can choose not to take any powers; but then, am I really playing the game? Might I as well not play any other game? By doing so, I'm opting out of the 4E-ness of 4E. If I'm part of a typical group, they're going to feel let down by my inability, because if 4E is run as its writing encourages...

I'm perfectly happy to talk about this, as long as I believe you're engaging in good faith. For me, there is a large difference in emphasis between 3E and 4E characters; 4E characters have, in general, a much larger number of dedicated combat abilities and also have little in the way of...

I see. Well, we'll have to agree to differ on what constitutes badgering. If you're interested in exactly why so many people didn't engage well with 4E as a game after trying it, there are a few million words already on the subject scattered around the internet. I believe the majority of those...

I don't understand, Dannager, are you trying to argue that: a) His experience of playing 4E isn't true, and he's misleading us? b) His experience of playing 4E is unnecessary, but due to an error in how he approached the game? The passive-aggressive constant questioning is beginning to come...

Isn't this fine? They should be easier to fight with +3 weapons. That should be the benefit of owning a +3 weapon. I'm not sure I understand the point you're making here. Are you essentially saying that it's easier to gauge challenges if you reduce party power and monster challenge to a single...

This proposal seems to be grounded in the notion that challenges in the game should be level specific; this is what the 4E math tried to achieve. This isn't the case in previous editions - a DC20 wall to climb in 3E was DC20 regardless of the level you might be. (Although of course, a GM might...

I'm not sure this is entirely true - I remember ranged fighters being quite deadly in 2E due to their improved rate of fire, and in 3E with various feat choices, an archer fighter could be extremely effective. (Due to various strange combinations, an archer cleric could occasionally be...

This is true in a game where there is a magical economy (and magic items can be purchased etc), but this isn't necessarily true of many (maybe most) games, and I think given the stated goals of 5E, it will definitely be possible to ignore magical economy and magic item shops etc. I don't think...

A "council of evil", gathered around a scrying pool, watching hapless adventurers about to be slain, and eyeing each other suspiciously. Dragon, mindflayer, beholder and lich. Sure, they probably wouldn't work together normally. Think of the backstory!