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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3921249" data-attributes="member: 1465">I feel like the new edition will have certainly a good bunch of problems less than 3e. But I'm saddened by the fact that many of those problems will be eliminated by throwing away the baby with the dirty water. Polymorph is problematic, so 4e has no polymorph at all (at least for a while). Level drain is problematic, so 4e has no level drain at all. Save-or-die are problematic, etc... It's simpler, but at the expense of interesting things.I think it will be faster to run combats. This is a good thing for everyone: those who love combats can have x3 combats per evening compared to the previous edition (more combats and just as little RP as before); those who don't love combats can spend 1/3 of the time they needed before (more RP and just as few combats as before).There are lots of small/big changes that point to more cinematics and "gamism". It's hard for me to even choose what I want to play: an exciting gamist's game or an intriguing simulationist's game? I've always oscillated between the two... I hate superheroes, so I don't want Superman or Darth Vader, but if I can make my game remind us of Indiana Jones and James Bond (highly cinematic, but still humans) that's fantastic. Some of the ideas introduced by 4e sound too detached from reality for my tastes (particularly the new healings), and they seem very hard to bring back to the ground. It's just that while I certainly like something exciting, on the long run I will lose interest if things are over the top.One more thing that has me split, is power creep. It doesn't require a 4e-hater to recognize that through the years characters' power always go up (although this time, spellcasters may not go so much up). You can't just compare PCs in different editions directly by level, but the tendency is always to add something to the PC, assuming this means always good. Just to make an example: skills. The 3.0 system was totally fine; 3.5 gave more skill points, made some skills free, and others 2-for-1; 4e will give even more skills and will make you good also in the ones you don't have. Why is it always a power-up? Is it really because the game needs it? Does the game really even get better? I am not so sure!I am talking about giving characters more aces up their sleeves, not just bumping up the number which means nothing because they'd bump the monsters' numbers up as well. I know by personal experience that if you give too many aces, the players will not use them, they will just bloat their character sheet. Maybe the player will drool by looking at his 100 spells, but will end up using the same bunch of spells as before. For skills it saddens me, because I've seen so many times players asking for more skill points ("they are so needed") and then never using their damn skills! And know that personally I am a player of spellcasters, so I definitely want flexibility! I'm just skeptic about when this is done so easily. On one hand, I am certainly happy if Fighters get more maneuvers (note that they already had quite a few in 3e core rules). On the other hand I wonder, if they stack lots of per-encounter abilities, so many that after a few level you can use one (different) per-encounter ability each turn... then what is the point of it being per-encounter anymore?Lots of questions, lots of doubts as you can see <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification