Search results

Skills weren't "omitted". A different system, based loosely on the previous one, was designed and put into place. It's semantics, a bit, but it's also an important distinction. 3e didn't have a skill for everything. It had a skill for a bunch of things, and a number of those weren't about...

You gave a very skewed list, exaggerating things in 3e and downplaying and excluding things in 4e. You left out cantrips, cleric and paladin healing, dismissed rituals as ineffective. And you seem to not understand that you are not comparing two directly related things in the two skill...

It shouldn't? So it should be unlike EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D EVER? No. It does it better than the other editions, for all the reasons I state above. It removes the shackles of "system" where they served to constrain rather than free characters to interact meaningfully with the game (such...

Combat and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. You don't cease roleplaying when you enter combat, or shouldn't anyway. Assuming a role is the point of the game while combat is a part of the game. That said, the focus of rules in most systems is on combat, or more accurately - conflict...

My problem is you keep saying things like that. You want 4e to do more and you argue it does less. You wants noncombat things more focused on. But where was the focus on noncombat skill use in 3e? 4e has a system for handling noncombat scenes ranging from a few seconds to months of game time...

What is humorous is that this is how you presented your initial position in this thread. I tried arguing the points rationally with you, but you are unwilling to move past your circular position of: 4e sucks at noncombat But what about all the noncombat things? Clearly they suck, didn't I...

And your point is wrong. 4e does it better than previous editions of D&D, but still worse than a great number of other system choices if the focus of your campaign is noncombat. 4e does noncombat better than previous versions of D&D. This claim is unsupportable. You still won't find any...

D&D was never designed to support noncombat gaming. Every edition has had a primary focus on combat. It has always been the most detailed system within the game system. If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&D? There are a number of systems out...

Dragon is continuing to kick the crap out of the PHB in presenting races.

This is more of what I had in mind with all the talk about racial options in the early design discussions on 4e. I love the idea of taking your race to its conclusion, rather than your class. And it seems off to a good start, the human paragon is badass.

I can see me reflavoring the concept to make a feat or two for my groups mercenary company to represent tactical training and experience.

Oh, I am definitely not. No worries there. I was just objecting to Midgets language implying that every last element in 4e that is not combat oriented has been factually established as "sucking". They don't. There are a lot more errors fixed from the Combat and Powers sections than anywhere...

So? They were wrong for the guy in Wisconsin who uses D&D to play a non heroic game of Postmen & Pitbulls. That doesn't make the designers wrong, it means your expectations are flawed. Clunky? Rituals are easy and generally well liked. My players love them. Skill challenges are the best...

Again, I think this is very short sighted. The design intent has been simply and repeatedly stated by the designers. The early core is focused on providing strong, balanced gameplay for the core of D&D gaming. The core book sequels and campaign settings will expand gameplay. It doesn't work...

In context, I think that was a pretty straight forward statement. I'm not talking about the occasional fleeing from the more powerful monster or encounter that took a bad turn. Fleeing, in that context, is of the "I'm just a normal human and incapable of combating horrors from beyond time and...

That's true. But when you mention Cthulhu-esque and D&D together, I don't picture that kind of game, but one where the heroes kick the ink out of tentacly things. Running away from monsters has never been a part of any edition of D&D. If that's the type of Cthulhu-esque the OP is talking...

I think, rather than 4e being limited here, you are looking at it in a limited manner. In other editions, few character classes are well suited to this style of game out of the box either, if you focus on just their class abilities. What does a fighter bring to the table for this type of game...

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. EnWorld is a place to discuss something. The public is allowed to discuss something. They make money by hosting a place in which to discuss something. If a bunch of gamers went to a pub to play and discuss and the management began...

Sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :) If and when that broken class comes down the pike, there will have been someone who "correctly" called it broken, despite the two dozen other someones incorrectly calling everything else broken. But that assessment won't be based on detailed...

I'm in line with a lot of the replies here. It's the little touches. Flavor your spells with a personal style - certain colors, movements, vocalizations, etc. Use spell cards to keep the information you need readily available, nothing kills the magic like having to thumb through the PHB every...