Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raith5" data-source="post: 6079820" data-attributes="member: 56051"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?69074-Cyberen" target="_blank">Cyberen,</a>I agree that 4th ed rules are not very complicated - things like second wind and action points are very easy to overlay on DDN. I would also add that keywords and standard conditions make it even less complicated. I think that a system of static defenses where the attacker always rolls against a defense is far more coherent than a system where the attacker sometimes rolls and the defender sometimes saves.But there is also some significant differences between 4th and previous editions which means that 4th ed cannot be easily reduced to a few rules: * One is the pacing and framing aspect of 4th which has that cinematic quality of focusing on scenes or encounters - this has consequences for how healing is handled. * The rules are also much more foregrounded - the relationship between the DM and player is much more mediated/structured by the rules - rather than a free form interplay (skill challenges are a good example here). * Some spells were overtly taken out of combat in the form of rituals. Some forms of capability like flying were overtly taken out of low and mid level play.* As a result, there is also a much more equal relationship between DM and player. In 4th ed the player can use powers to interrupt the DM in resolving combat by using powers like 'combined fire' or 'disruptive strike'. Could this be easily done in previous editions? I love this more equal and shared responsibility for making the game work - but it certainly jars with previous editions of D&D.As a result I think there is more to 4th ed than a few rules, there are some underlying ideas that could be the basis for an advanced game in DDN. However, the problem is that I am not sure how aware WOTC are of the underlying ideas of 4th ed. It is certainly the case that many threads here on ENworld demonstrate a more sophisticated take on 4th ed than what is stated by Mearls and co.</blockquote>

Verification