Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5802381" data-attributes="member: 996">I'm with you this far.&nbsp; WotC was starting to 'pull stuff' from as early as the 3.5 intro.&nbsp; They were getting this feel to their marketing - I don't know if it's 'big corporation' or 'used car salesman' or what, exactly, but they've been steadily losing trust and respect for a long time...Yeah.&nbsp; That was class balance.&nbsp; D&amp;D had always aimed for some sort of rough class balance over time and always failed badly.&nbsp; 4e finally succeeded, but a lot of us were so accustomed to imbalanced that 'it didn't seem like D&amp;D anymore.'Honestly, I was one of those for a little while.&nbsp; It didn't seem like D&amp;D when I first read through the PH1.&nbsp; It seemed technically a lot better, though, so I was willing to give it a try, and after a while - quite a while, actually, it wasn't until we started our second campaign - I started to realize it still had the D&amp;D feel.&nbsp; Wizards were still awesome - it's just that fighters and rogues had become awesome, too.&nbsp; PCs still gained levels, accumulated ludicrous hps and could survive being poisoned and falling off cliffs in defiance of all logic and laws of physics.&nbsp; It was just D&amp;D done so /well/ that it was hard to recognize at a glance.&nbsp; Ironic, really.Resource managment became an issue for all classes, and the wizard was still 'vancian' in the sense of prepping spells, but yeah, the extreme strategic/resource-management exercise of learning, prepping and using /only/ daily spells was gone.&nbsp; It made wizards a lot easier to play, though, which I suppose was a boon for new players who didn't want to just play a fighter or make with the heals as a cleric because no on else wanted to.KotSf was pretty aweful.Having run 4e more than a little, I'm afraid you've got a skewed experience, there.&nbsp; Parties can handle level+4 or more, and even a level-2 can be slightly taxing (a surge or few).You got a few things factually wrong, but on the whole your experience is quite plausible.&nbsp; You were disapointed with WotC when 4e was announced, you let that disapointment poison your early perceptions of 4e, you never got over it.&nbsp; You missed out on a great game.&nbsp; I don't blame you so much as WotC, though.&nbsp; WotC has said a lot of things.&nbsp; They said they'd never repeat the 3.5 debacle again, but they came out with 4e after only 8 years instead of the 10 years between 1e &amp; 2e and 2e &amp; 3e.&nbsp; Then came out with a veritable 4.5 called Essentials after only 2 years, then announced 5e years early.&nbsp; They said they'd have a host of e-tools for the 4e DM, they still only have Monster Builder.&nbsp; I'm back where you &amp; I both were leading up to the announcement of 4e - more than a little dissapointed in WotC, not enclined to trust them, with very low expectations and no predisposition to be pleased even if those expectations are exceeded...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5802381, member: 996"] I'm with you this far. WotC was starting to 'pull stuff' from as early as the 3.5 intro. They were getting this feel to their marketing - I don't know if it's 'big corporation' or 'used car salesman' or what, exactly, but they've been steadily losing trust and respect for a long time... Yeah. That was class balance. D&D had always aimed for some sort of rough class balance over time and always failed badly. 4e finally succeeded, but a lot of us were so accustomed to imbalanced that 'it didn't seem like D&D anymore.' Honestly, I was one of those for a little while. It didn't seem like D&D when I first read through the PH1. It seemed technically a lot better, though, so I was willing to give it a try, and after a while - quite a while, actually, it wasn't until we started our second campaign - I started to realize it still had the D&D feel. Wizards were still awesome - it's just that fighters and rogues had become awesome, too. PCs still gained levels, accumulated ludicrous hps and could survive being poisoned and falling off cliffs in defiance of all logic and laws of physics. It was just D&D done so /well/ that it was hard to recognize at a glance. Ironic, really. Resource managment became an issue for all classes, and the wizard was still 'vancian' in the sense of prepping spells, but yeah, the extreme strategic/resource-management exercise of learning, prepping and using /only/ daily spells was gone. It made wizards a lot easier to play, though, which I suppose was a boon for new players who didn't want to just play a fighter or make with the heals as a cleric because no on else wanted to. KotSf was pretty aweful. Having run 4e more than a little, I'm afraid you've got a skewed experience, there. Parties can handle level+4 or more, and even a level-2 can be slightly taxing (a surge or few). You got a few things factually wrong, but on the whole your experience is quite plausible. You were disapointed with WotC when 4e was announced, you let that disapointment poison your early perceptions of 4e, you never got over it. You missed out on a great game. I don't blame you so much as WotC, though. WotC has said a lot of things. They said they'd never repeat the 3.5 debacle again, but they came out with 4e after only 8 years instead of the 10 years between 1e & 2e and 2e & 3e. Then came out with a veritable 4.5 called Essentials after only 2 years, then announced 5e years early. They said they'd have a host of e-tools for the 4e DM, they still only have Monster Builder. I'm back where you & I both were leading up to the announcement of 4e - more than a little dissapointed in WotC, not enclined to trust them, with very low expectations and no predisposition to be pleased even if those expectations are exceeded... [/QUOTE]

Verification