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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 4243810" data-attributes="member: 25619">I said "uppowered", not "underpowered", but re-reading my own spiel this morning, I had to do a double take on that because I read it as "underpowered" too.All I meant was that the wizards has more spells and hp, closer to about a 3rd level Wizard in 3e (because of the Acid Arrow spell and lots of Magic Missiles and Sleeps).The tradeoff of unlimited Magic Missiles but you have to roll to hit, I'd have to see in play, but it sounds mostly different rather than a change in power level.  But if I had to guess, I'd guess it makes them slightly stronger in most situations, at least against multiple opponents/something that takes a while to go down.As for the complaints that D&D was never meant to simulate anything, sure, it's not super realistic of anything, but I believe the rules were created to simulate -- to be like -- something outside the game.  That's not necessarily real life -- though I remember commentary on range of bows being limited indoors compared to crossbows because bows need to follow an up curving trajectory to gain range, whereas crossbows are more direct fire weapons -- but real life was not irrelevant to thinking about rules and interpreting them.  Certainly, how traps worked and how to detect them and secret doors could be quite realism based in AD&D.  And rules like encumberance, while skewed fantastic, were meant to get at a real world idea that you can't take everything -- unlike in DDO, where you can have 7 swords if you want.  And in general, I think AD&D rules were simulating fantasy literature and trying to be true to it.Whereas I think 4e is true only to itself.  It's sui generis -- generated from itself -- rather than trying to fit into some other narrative.   So rule decisions like my call that X feat was OK because I've seen it illustrated in "Warfare in the Classical World", whereas Y feat is not OK because it couldn't actually be done wouldn't play into 4e design.  Whether that sort of thinking was "meant" to be in earlier editions is a slightly different question -- I say yes, others say no.  But I do get the impression is not there at all in 4e, or is way tuned down.As for the idea that the main reason I'm hesitant on 4e is that I have a "life campaign", that's fair.  I prefer a campaign where the characters I played and my friends played as kids, and the ones from Lake Geneva we learned about from "Rogues Gallery", and the ones from other died off campaigns, are all still in there somewhere, waiting to come out.  Being able to tell a good friend he could use his first ever D&D character in my 3e campaign (after I reviewed it and saw it was not craziness), with the guy's Greyhawk history intact and no deep stat, item, or ability changes was really nice, even if it was only a cameo for a few sessions.  <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=":)" />  There's just something magical about that, and not to get too sentimental, but also about the idea that though a player can die, their characters live on forever.   One of the guys I've played and who was good friends with several of my current players did die, and it's awfully nice to able to have side references to the idea that his character is still alive somewhere far far away, with one of the PC's (of a guy who knew the player but joined the game later) buying a magic item he sold to the local magic store and being told about the old character by the NPC's who fondly remember him, that sort of thing.  I guess it could be done in 4e, but the feel might be off, and it would certainly be a lot of work to convert.  I hope WOTC does put out a conversion manual, though.</blockquote>

Verification