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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4095987" data-attributes="member: 5122">There are two huge design goals of 4E that I'm 100 percent behind, and a third one that I'm theoretically favoring.(1) Stretching out the sweet spot.  While I like the lower levels, including the more likely lethality, I really start to dislike 3.5 somewhere around levels 14 or 15.  And that's even as a player ... as a DM, "dislike" is a bit too mild a word.  So I'm a huge fan of the designers' goal with regard to that.(2) Related (note the "as a DM" note above), I think it's great that they're trying to simplify DM prep.  This isn't as big an issue for me as it is for some other folks, because I really don't have much problem with throwing together enemies, even BBEGs, the way I want them, rules be damned.  On the other hand, I can definitely understand those DMs who want to stay 100 percent "inside the lines" when it comes to DMing, so I support the design goal.  Also, frankly, even with "rules be damned," things start to get seriously complex at about 13th level or so, because there's only so much fudging you can do before you're punishing your players for being tactically smart.(3) Increased mobility in combat.  Despite all the DM advice, 3.5 combat all too often comes down to static positions (give or take a 5-foot step each round), meaning there's very little point in having cool terrain.  It's possible to build characters who are focused on using the terrain, and maybe the focus on mobility ought to be built into characters rather than into the system.  (That's why I say "theoretically.")  But the truth is, most combat-mobile builds in 3.5 are significantly less effective than combat-static builds, so maybe it's time to try doing it server-side rather than client-side.</blockquote>

Verification