Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herschel" data-source="post: 4577099" data-attributes="member: 78357">You would be wrong then. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;The difference is a lessening of rules sets for non-combat and putting th epower of the game back in the DM's hands, where many of us feel it belongs. &nbsp;3e is all about number crunching: which combo of PrC, magic, etc. gives me the best chance to break the curve. If that's your thing fine, but many of us hated that part of 3e, especially in the role-playing portion of the game instead of making it roll-playing.&nbsp;4e grants a lot more flexibility and breathing room in to the role playing&nbsp; portion. &nbsp;Funny enough, partly because it's still newish, the classes are more balanced against the others now but I feel have lost some of their differentiation. There are only so many powers in the few books published. Now every class has attack rolls vs. defenses. Auto-damage as we knew it is basically gone. You can be standing at Groud Zero of a fireball and not be hit even without fire resistence. &nbsp;Classes are now divided in to rolls that are different than before. Ranger is no longer the brother of fighter, but the brother of rogue. Wizards don't blast something big to submission very often, but they lay waste to minions and decide/control where and when the smackdown will occur. Suddenly that big, baddie is alone and not fighting at an advantage and doesn't have cheap flankers any more.&nbsp;They're simply quite different games. I hated 3e personally and like 4e even though there are aspects I think were done better in past editions. &nbsp;But that's me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herschel, post: 4577099, member: 78357"] You would be wrong then. ;) The difference is a lessening of rules sets for non-combat and putting th epower of the game back in the DM's hands, where many of us feel it belongs. 3e is all about number crunching: which combo of PrC, magic, etc. gives me the best chance to break the curve. If that's your thing fine, but many of us hated that part of 3e, especially in the role-playing portion of the game instead of making it roll-playing. 4e grants a lot more flexibility and breathing room in to the role playing portion. Funny enough, partly because it's still newish, the classes are more balanced against the others now but I feel have lost some of their differentiation. There are only so many powers in the few books published. Now every class has attack rolls vs. defenses. Auto-damage as we knew it is basically gone. You can be standing at Groud Zero of a fireball and not be hit even without fire resistence. Classes are now divided in to rolls that are different than before. Ranger is no longer the brother of fighter, but the brother of rogue. Wizards don't blast something big to submission very often, but they lay waste to minions and decide/control where and when the smackdown will occur. Suddenly that big, baddie is alone and not fighting at an advantage and doesn't have cheap flankers any more. They're simply quite different games. I hated 3e personally and like 4e even though there are aspects I think were done better in past editions. But that's me. [/QUOTE]

Verification