Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5870347" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm a little nervous about how they're going to do &quot;non-magical healing,&quot; since the HP Problem was a big component of why some folks rejected 4e. But they should be aware of that, so we'll see how it goes. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Such strum und drang! Such woeful melodrama! Ah, yes, because OD&amp;D had such difficulty putting in more races and concepts...that's why you don't see much variety in anything based on OD&amp;D!...wait...Besides, I think in that context, he's just talking about what they're preparing for the playtest. It makes sense that they'd start with the big iconic character types, and work from there. He's given quite a list of 4e-style things they're planning on keeping. In fact...And that's just what he's mentioned!He's also not throwing out the core tenets of 4e's design with that second question. In fact...Which is exactly the encounter-focused game that 4e provides. However, to make everyone play that game would be a mistake. 4e's encounter focus is not what everyone wants out of the game. It's not tenable. So 5e needs to have the adventure as the main focus. They're leaving in the option to turn it back to an encounter focus, which is impressive, but that can't be what the game has everyone do.It sounds to me exactly like he's saying, &quot;We're putting 4e in context with the rest of D&amp;D, and keeping what makes the game better in that context, with the option of turning off that context, if you're a 4e diehard.&quot;I understand 4e diehards might not like that, but right now, there's a lot more people playing D&amp;D who don't play 4e than there are 4e players. So they need to put in that context, if they hope to gather anyone who doesn't like 4e, but likes D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5870347, member: 2067"] I'm a little nervous about how they're going to do "non-magical healing," since the HP Problem was a big component of why some folks rejected 4e. But they should be aware of that, so we'll see how it goes. :) Such strum und drang! Such woeful melodrama! Ah, yes, because OD&D had such difficulty putting in more races and concepts...that's why you don't see much variety in anything based on OD&D! ...wait... Besides, I think in that context, he's just talking about what they're preparing for the playtest. It makes sense that they'd start with the big iconic character types, and work from there. He's given quite a list of 4e-style things they're planning on keeping. In fact... And that's just what he's mentioned! He's also not throwing out the core tenets of 4e's design with that second question. In fact... Which is exactly the encounter-focused game that 4e provides. However, to make everyone play that game would be a mistake. 4e's encounter focus is not what everyone wants out of the game. It's not tenable. So 5e needs to have the adventure as the main focus. They're leaving in the option to turn it back to an encounter focus, which is impressive, but that can't be what the game has everyone do. It sounds to me exactly like he's saying, "We're putting 4e in context with the rest of D&D, and keeping what makes the game better in that context, with the option of turning off that context, if you're a 4e diehard." I understand 4e diehards might not like that, but right now, there's a lot more people playing D&D who don't play 4e than there are 4e players. So they need to put in that context, if they hope to gather anyone who doesn't like 4e, but likes D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification