Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7295387" data-attributes="member: 6779196">4e combats took longer because hp totals were much higher, there were more abilities that focused on manipulating positions on a grid, and the encounter building guidelines were written for groups of multiple enemies to be the rule rather than the exception. The length of combat had almost nothing to do with the mechanics of 4e’s action economy. A lot of people blame multiple off-turn actions, but in practice that came up a lot less often than people make it out to have done. Apart from being limited to one Reaction per round and movement being a resource instead of a type of action, 5e’s action economy is almost identical to 4e’s, it’s just written in a way that attempts to hide that fact (and apparently succeeds for many people).Just like in 5e, which I’m pretty sure was Hussar’s point.Every class’ Proficiency Bonus scales at the same rate. Every spellcasting class except the Warlock uses the same spell slots by level table, and the partial casters advance on it on every other or every third level. Every class gives ability Score increases every 4 levels.More importantly, just because every class got Powers of the same frequency of use at the same levels (and even that’s a dubious statement because utility powers could be at-will, encounter, or daily) doesn’t mean every class actually played the same. And on top of that, Essentials even broke that mold, every Essentials character has its own progression, getting different powers of different categories at different levels, and even getting class features that weren’t powers at all at several levels. Anyone who still says all 4e classes were the same clearly didn’t play much 4e.Again, there are a lot of reasons people disliked 4e. Many of them are poorly founded. Can we please not have this argument in this thread?</blockquote>

Verification