Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4120165" data-attributes="member: 19675">I'm one of the 4E fence sitters.  Looking at the OP's post and others:I disagree- too videogamey for me.Haven't seen them, but I, too, love mook rules.  If they're any good, that would definitely be one in the plus column.Neutral. Not me.Neutral at this point.I'm cautiously optimistic.  I didn't like the way the Warlock was handled in 3.5, but the core concept of having reusable abilities is solid.I don't like that- as stated above, its bad geometry.Then again, my group is more likely to play on a hex-grid than squares, so diagonal movement isn't an issue. Again, cautiously optimistic.Don't have any idea what that is at this point.This is excellent- its actually very similar to what I'm doing with my 3.X campaign for more powerful races.I really, really dislike this.I could get with this if it were certain undead, or if there were abilities that PCs had to choose to crit or SA undead, but not as a basic feature of the game being altered.I really, really dislike this.3.X was the first edition of D&D that really started to capture the effectiveness of polearms and how dangerous lapses in concentration/narrowing your focus in combat can be- now its getting tossed.  Blech.I much prefer a "one ruleset to rule them all" type design.  Even if it streamlines NPC creation, I don't like it when there are 2 competing design rulesets for PCs and NPCs.I dislike this.  I think getting around ASF should be the benefit of certain races, classes, or ability selections, not the baseline default of the system.This has the potential to be quite good.Strongly dislike- it is disruptive of some people's PC/campaign continuity.Strongly dislike- it is disruptive of some people's PC/campaign continuity.  This, the one immediately above, and similar changes are going to be severe roadblocks to enjoying 4Ed for some people who don't want to start a new campaign or design a new PC after investing 5+ years in a 3.X game.Neutral.While on the face of it being quite a laudable design goal, this is IMHO a non-issue.  Dependence on magic items in D&D has mostly been a factor of DM campaign design than the game itself, IME.I just don't see it affecting that many games.Neutral.Potentially excellent- I hope that its for real!Could be good- cautiously optimistic.Cautiously optimistic- I like save-or-die, but unfettered use of the mechanic can be quite frustrating.Now, looking back at my responses above, I see I have 12 responses that are "Neutral" or better (out of 24 features of 4Ed mentioned)...unfortunately, most of them are "Neutral," and my negatives are fairly strong.I'm still on the fence, I guess.Edit: Added my own, but still balancing out:I hate the Magic Ring rule mechanics, but I really, really love the logical scaling of magic and powers (IOW, 1st level PCs have access to 1st level spells, 2nd level PCs get 2nd level spells, etc.).</blockquote>

Verification