Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4283134" data-attributes="member: 710">Why do you quote pemerton but don't read what he writes? He said that the rules text itself is not evocative. That is not the goal of the rules text.The question is what happens in play. And if you haven't played the game, you can't really judge it (I suppose, pemerton can neither). But if you read the powers and think about how they can interact, what it means if I slide an enemy into a flanking position, if I daze a Dragon before he becomes bloodied, what happens if shifty Kobold meets Figher with Combat Superiority, you will see a lot of potential for interesting interaction. It is an emergent complexity, but that isn't bad.---For house-rules in 4E: What do people consider house-rules? Creating a new monster to fit your story? Creating a new race? Creating a new feat or spell (power)? Or creating a new spellcasting subsystem (spell slots=> power points)? Creating a different damage resolution model (aka Hit Points => Wound Points and Vitality Points)? Because I absolutely don't see how you can't do the former, and that is the kind of house-rules I have done all the time in D&D 3E. And I am already doing for 4E. The latter is rarely done, because they require a lot of work and re-balancing. And 3E isn't any better at it then 4E...</blockquote>