Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 4351665" data-attributes="member: 5834">I didn't find that to be the case. Some spells could devastate a party. Then again, I didn't use stock villains. I designed them with harsh spells taken into account and with an awareness of how easily they could affect my part.Didn't see a wall of force spell.Subdual damage is messy and loud. Hold magic is quiet and controlled. It works quite well against most people save those with high will saves. Kidnappings generally required subtelty and magic can be very subtle...at least in previous editions. Not so much now.Don't understand why this couldn't have been accomplished with a more variable and interesting spell system.This is going to limit them in the long run. It may be great for ground floor, but there is a reason they made the rules more complex. Because it enhances creative thinking for mechanic creation. This is very limited mechanically from either 2nd or 3rd edition. This is true. And more people are visual thinkers. I have this book. It did do some nice things for the melee classes.Sad that this was the case. This is another version of Dnd where I like quite a bit of it, but dislike an almost equal amount. I dislike more than I like at the moment because I was a caster orietned player. This turns me into Conan the Caster...just another dumbed-down damage dealer with a few nifty tricks. Just like everyone else.My friends want to run it, so I'll play it. But my days of DMing and buying DnD products are done. Fourth edition was a backwards step in creativity and game mechanics. I wish they had moved forward rather than simplified.But then again, the market for games with advanced mechanics is small. I look at the game and think I might have liked it when I was a kid and just wanted to whack things. But as an adult that prefers intricate story telling, it's just too limited for what I like to do. First edition of DnD that has made me feel this way as an adult.</blockquote>

Verification