Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 4351978" data-attributes="member: 5834">reThe way I run verbal components would never compare to a beat down necessary to do subdual damage. Did you play high level DnD? It's real hard to beat down a high level character with subdual damage in a few rounds.We'll see. What I saw was recycled mechanics and the same do 1dSomething damage and something else. Putting a new name on a different mechanc is not creativity, it's like South Park said about Shymalan and his penchant for twisting old plots.I'll see how this plays out. I didn't notice the complexity so far. To me complexity is like chess...play/counterplay. This game seems very direct and lacking in complexity, by design.The monsters are interesting. They don't seem to have the same limitations as the players.Strange. For me the mechanics helped my story telling. I was able to think up stories that revolved around particular spell uses.I started an adventure recently by imprisoning the fighter and forcing the party to do what the imprisoner asked to get him to release the fighter. I loved thinking of new ways to use spells to trick my players.Like the old tactic in Ravenloft where Strahd has the party wasting spells and time on an illusion before he actually attacks. Caster versatility did alot to spice up my campaigns.But I admit this was somewhat unfair to melee players. That is why I like what they did for melees in 4th edition.I did alot of monster adaptation in terms of skills and abilities. 3rd edition wasn't perfect, but it got my creative juices flowing in a good way. It left alot of open ground and no mechanic was too strange to work in it. I didn't have problems tracking durations either. So not sure why they got rid of spell durations for the most part.When I say lacking creativity, I mean more on the player side of things. As in I find that looking at my character, I have a very few, simple things I can do. I just do them and hope they work. There isn't much interplay between spells like their used to be.Like the old Cloudkill imprison in Wall of Stone tactic. Or Enervate followed by dominate monster/i].I'm not sure if you played much high level DnD. But high lvl 3rd edition DnD was very interesting if you put your work in. But it wasn't so good for a group that wanted to run stock modules.So I understand the moves they made to change the game. It was unwieldy and time consuming at high levels. You had to put alot of work in for a good payoff for the party. This simplification should extend alot of players campaign life. It just doesn't add much to what I was doing. I guess it comes down more to personal tastes and I don't fall into the normal area of the curve of whatever study they did to determine what people wanted from DnD.I would have liked them to move to a more complex platform for melee combat that finally included martial arts and opposed weapon skills rather than what they did. I guess it fits the flavor of DnD in that ease of play was always a factor in its popularity and longevity.</blockquote>

Verification