Search results

This. The problem is that they failed to leverage their best asset in 4e. Make these into powers rather than class features. Put them on power cards and hang the interactions on the power system, which is clean and intuitive in addition to being always in front of you in a reasonably concise way.

The box screams "Give me to kids!" The rules we've seen scream "We're sorry lapsed players!" I don't know if this means they're straddling phase 2 and phase 3 or what, but it feels incoherent to me. That could just be me. But it's based on my experience is that 4e is more new new player...

Fewer options at character creation is potentially good for new new players. Beyond that.... I don't see changes that are germane to new new players. In fact, my experience suggests that the power system is more attractive to new new players than the retro presentation of martial classes...

Not really. I've run into "D&D is serious business" throughout my time playing. More of a player issue than a rules issue. And you don't need wacky monsters to have silly fun. Some of the biggest laugh-until-you-hurt moments have come when we're fighting nothing more interesting or wacky...

Depends on what you mean by "fundamentals." For some people, that means core game mechanics. For others it means an assortment of thematic elements that they choose and express variously. Some people have a fundamental disagreement with the way 4e works as a system, sure. But there are a lot...

This. Selection bias at both ends.

Let's not perpetuate one bad stereotype while trying to dispel another. IME, the asocial are happier playing single player CRPGs, or complaining about lack of single-player content in online RPGs. Most of the worthwhile content in online RPGs requires you to be at least somewhat social, and...

Nonsense. One of them is a Cleave aura, for example. Great when you are adjacent to two things, useless when not. If you move, or the enemies do, or some of them die, which aura you want up is suddenly relevant again. Functionally, this is no different from choosing between "Cleave" and...

But, that was one decision before, not two decisions in the same turn. I keep forgetting about the alleged problem there. :o Conceded again, though that's really an entirely separate decision space. In that space, the Knight is definitely simpler.

I'm familiar with it, and you have a point, but I don't think this case is as schematic as you're laying it out. For one thing, if you look at the limited progression path they gave us for the Thief, it's not going to remain a set of binary choices. Some option sets will grow as you level...

Now that I think about it, the functional difference is only one extra decision. "Do I need to change my aura?" is functionally equivalent to choosing a power. And the only actual new decision is "Is this a good time to apply Power Strike?" Presumably, to scale in power as it levels, you'll...

Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players." "Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?" You may not be mandated to make choices very often, but right at first level you have the option of making choices more often with the thief than the rogue. To start...

I quite like this in some ways. You get your "power" from moving around, rather than the attack itself. Mechanical encouragement and justification for being a nimble, tricksy guy in combat. Good flavor, tasty idea. But it's not actually simpler in the strict sense of that word. That seems...

Like Iron Man 2, there are like 3 separate movies going on there. As long as the movie about Thor becoming worthy of his power is well executed, the rest of it will probably work out fine. But Marvel needs to either stick to 1 or 2 plots or start releasing 3 hour movies.

This is more or less how I felt. Simpler to create, simple to run if you don't care if you're effective. Possibly less simple than a Fighter if you actually want to be good. IMO, of course. We'll see how the actual running of it bears out over time. To attack with a Fighter, you make one...

As a player, the level of tactics I employ varies, though I do have a tendency towards tactical thinking. I err on the side of analyzing the battlefield for advantage, but I do modify that on a per character basis. If I'm playing a Barbarian (any edition), he tends to be the sort who lops off...

It's like how when someone dies, they retroactively become a paragon, even if during their life they kicked puppies and stole candy from babies. When they were readily available, the majority opinion was that bards sucked. But then Wizards had the gall to delay their availability for a few...

Not quite. I wanted a set of pick up and play characters that introduce depth at a point after character creation. They seem to have delivered that for the cleric AFAICT, but not for the Fighter, and I don't think they did for the wizard, either, but I'm waiting to see more before I make that...

So, that link was actually insulting. What would have been more useful is a link to the meaning of tl dr. I never remember that one, and my brain skips right past it.

Garages and basements were par for the course in middle school and high school. Kitchen tables got to be standard after college.