Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3973176" data-attributes="member: 467">I understand this complaint, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good solution.&nbsp; If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two (and those archetypes matter, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck around for so long -- and I am not referring to the 30 years of D&amp;D).&nbsp; One of my key complaints with 4e is the casting of roles that are enterily mechanical, rather than having anything to do with archetypes (&quot;The rogue?&nbsp; A striker, you say? Um, no.&quot;)I don't think you are likely to see less of your average play time be combat in 4E than 3E -- probably quite the opposite since both traps and social interactions have been adjusted to be sufficiently &quot;combat like&quot; to qualify as such.&nbsp; So, it makes sense for you to think that removing any elements that might hinder your action in combat to be a good thing, as it keeps you active and playing.&nbsp; And in a way you are right, but only insofar as such changes are needed because the emphasis on crunchy combat goes up and up.Rather than &quot;fix&quot; 3E combat by making all awesome, all the time, 4E could have fixed it so it didn't last as long (deflate hit points across the board, back to 1E levels), reduced the time needed to look up rules (put more power back in the hands of the DM), and sped up the actual process of maneuvering minis around thebattlemat (no more 10' diagonals; simplified AoOs; etc...)&nbsp; As it is, the &quot;fix&quot; is as likely to unsatisfying as the &quot;problem&quot; was, but it will be full of special effects and random crit-heals.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 3973176, member: 467"] I understand this complaint, but I don't think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good solution. If you make the rogue a better fighter than the fighter, it isn't just one character archetype you have confused, it is two (and those archetypes matter, otherwise they wouldn't have stuck around for so long -- and I am not referring to the 30 years of D&D). One of my key complaints with 4e is the casting of roles that are enterily mechanical, rather than having anything to do with archetypes ("The rogue? A striker, you say? Um, no.") I don't think you are likely to see less of your average play time be combat in 4E than 3E -- probably quite the opposite since both traps and social interactions have been adjusted to be sufficiently "combat like" to qualify as such. So, it makes sense for you to think that removing any elements that might hinder your action in combat to be a good thing, as it keeps you active and playing. And in a way you are right, but only insofar as such changes are needed because the emphasis on crunchy combat goes up and up. Rather than "fix" 3E combat by making all awesome, all the time, 4E could have fixed it so it didn't last as long (deflate hit points across the board, back to 1E levels), reduced the time needed to look up rules (put more power back in the hands of the DM), and sped up the actual process of maneuvering minis around thebattlemat (no more 10' diagonals; simplified AoOs; etc...) As it is, the "fix" is as likely to unsatisfying as the "problem" was, but it will be full of special effects and random crit-heals. [/QUOTE]

Verification