Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbrrd" data-source="post: 6052450" data-attributes="member: 63962">If I wanted to sum up 4e I think most of the bad reputation when it gets to non-combat comes from bad presentation of the skills as mentioned in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/331908-4e-encounter-design-why-does-doesnt-work-you-9.html#post6052282" target="_blank">this post</a> by pemerton and the nearly completely combat focused adventures that got relased around launch. (Also mentioned by pemberton in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-pathfinder/331908-4e-encounter-design-why-does-doesnt-work-you-10.html#post6052382" target="_blank">this post</a>)Another thing mentioned is how badly 4e handles just having one encounter pr day - not that it's much worse at it than 3e, but it isn't good anyway. If you have just one encounter for a day in 4e you need to up the difficulty by a lot to make it interesting, especially at higher levels with multiple dailies.I think 4e could have gotten a completely different reception if the first few adventures had at least one that focused less on dungeon crawling and more on other role playing aspects, like skills and interaction with NPC's. If they had highlighted something else but combat, maybe 4e wouldn't have gotten the reputation it has.Part of the reason I stopped DM-ing 4e was that the system also puts a lot of pressure to shower the players with magical items. If you don't, the "math" of the system relatively quickly breaks down.One thing I did do to make overland travel with some random encounters a bit more challenging was saying that they didn't get to take a long rest until they reached their destination. It did work out ok, but I switched back to the regular long rest cycle when they got to their destination. It felt kind of weird, but partially because there are no examples of houserules like that in the core, something I think they should have.</blockquote>

Verification