Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mathew_Freeman" data-source="post: 4210282" data-attributes="member: 1846">@ Gizmo33You appear to be deliberately over-blowing the situation and taking my responses out of all proportion.The reason I like the new rules is this:In 3.x D&amp;D, archers were obliged to take certain feats to be effective or indeed viable at all. The cover rules don't come into it - my objection is that characters were more or less forced to take these feats otherwise there was little point in playing them. The cover rules lead to over-complication, slowed down the game and lead to a lot of discussion around the table about who was and wasn't in cover, how much, and so forth.In 4e, as I understand it, you're in cover, or you're not. If you are, -2 to hit, if not, fine. The cover rules are simple, effective and clear (at the moment - I'm sure it'll all get more complicated when the Rules forum gets hold of it). I like them, they promote a fun and quick combat system. They're not realistic, but I don't play D&amp;D for realism - if you do, then we're never going to agree and that's fine.As for your other examples - I have no response to that since it seems to have no resemblance to anything we've seen in any preview, nor in any game I've ever played.So long as the pretty colours include purple, I'm all up for that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mathew_Freeman, post: 4210282, member: 1846"] @ Gizmo33 You appear to be deliberately over-blowing the situation and taking my responses out of all proportion. The reason I like the new rules is this: In 3.x D&D, archers were obliged to take certain feats to be effective or indeed viable at all. The cover rules don't come into it - my objection is that characters were more or less forced to take these feats otherwise there was little point in playing them. The cover rules lead to over-complication, slowed down the game and lead to a lot of discussion around the table about who was and wasn't in cover, how much, and so forth. In 4e, as I understand it, you're in cover, or you're not. If you are, -2 to hit, if not, fine. The cover rules are simple, effective and clear (at the moment - I'm sure it'll all get more complicated when the Rules forum gets hold of it). I like them, they promote a fun and quick combat system. They're not realistic, but I don't play D&D for realism - if you do, then we're never going to agree and that's fine. As for your other examples - I have no response to that since it seems to have no resemblance to anything we've seen in any preview, nor in any game I've ever played. So long as the pretty colours include purple, I'm all up for that. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification