NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 3976361" data-attributes="member: 16586">I'm not going to argue that this isn't a genuine concern, especially for folks who've been with the game since its inception. Generally speaking, I think 3e and 4e occupy a middle ground between archetype based game play and more free for all systems. Personally, I tend to like this middle ground.As far as combat parity and hopefully noncombat parity being central design goals of 4e I can't say I've ever really looked at it from a player's perspective. The reason I tend to view such things favorably is the additional adventure design space this allows me as a DM.I can understand where you're coming from here. Other than the traps preview, some hints of rituals, and some vague indications of the new social resolution system we've seen little about the noncombat elements of the game. I think there a few reasons for this that don't really speak to the overall focus of the design work although I could be wrong. First of all, I think the combat mechanics are sufficiently different enough from previous iterations of the game to make them ripe for preview material and they're probably easier to preview in chunks than the social resolution material will be. Additionally it's probably easier for a number of people to relate to, right or wrong.To a certain extent I agree with you here, although most likely not on all specifics. Over all I'd argue that 'unfun' has been trumpeted out far too often on these boards. Much like 'anime' or 'video game' its a term used in place of a solid argument and cuts off discussion. I guess I don't see this issue as a binary one. There are varying levels of 'being taken out of the game' as well as differing rates of occurrence. I personally feel that PCs in 3e are hyper specialized to an extent that occasionally wreaks havoc upon adventure design for me. I agree having individual PCs shine is something that needs to be preserved, and I have faith that it will be if not necessarily to the degree that you might prefer. For instance, it seems like rogues and warlocks will not do as well as fighters and wizards in combat against a multitude of foes, but will rise to the occasion against solo enemies. Rogues should still be the best equipped to handle bomb disposal. Generally, I think most examples of PCs shining will be due to expressing their strengths, rather than as a result of other PCs dealing with glaring weaknesses (see the removal of the Rock/Paper/Scissors spell casting in Saga). I absolutely agree with you here. I think where we disagree here is how to best accomplish that task.I’m not trying to sell you on 4e here, but I’d advise you to wait a while longer before making up your mind. There’s still a lot we still don’t know and making up your mind now, for good or ill, could be doing yourself a disservice. It is a shame that so many of us have become lost in rhetoric to the point that we can’t really have a decent conversation.Note: When I was composing this reply I used Microsoft Word and edited the entirity of the post, including quoted section, for spelling and grammar.</blockquote>

Verification