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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5358452" data-attributes="member: 48965">I don't think anyone would disagree with you... in fact I don't see your perspective as necessarily being the "opposite" of the perspective of many enjoying essentials...  Your problems in the above passage seemed to be based around general problems of pure class systems. IMO, it seems that you really aren't a fan of class systems and thus don't enjoy the benefits along with the disadvantages of more rigid class systems.  But 4e has it's own limitations that are annoying to some people... Like how my PHB 1 fighter is crap if he has to use a bow (though this was never the case in previous editions)... I guess I have the choice to use the bow, but is it a good choice when all my powers don't work with it and my abilities are sub-optimal for it. We no longer have that problem with the Slayer (though far from an expert archer he's at least feasible as an archer in a pinch)... I guess what I am saying is that a class system by it's very nature will be limited, and I think the issue is really one of first accepting the benefits and diadvantages that come with a class system and then deciding what limitations best fit your style. As an example, I felt 4e tried to codify and restrict one's role in a way more narrow way than the past editions did and it felt stiffling and limiting to me. YMMV of course   I think it's the fault of presenting the powers and not presenting the improvising rules to the players in the PHB. I also think that the tactical nature of the game and the dependency on teamwork to survive tends to mean you are usually in a much better position using powers (especially as they are a known quantity)... than you are trying to do stuff with rules you don't know. I guess I think it is both a function of 4e's presentation and an emergent property of play that many players rely more on their powers than anything else... especially players who may not be the most tactically adept and thus are struggling with deciding what and how to do stuff with just their main options... let alone whatever else they can think up...without messing their team up.   And see for me I feel very much like 4e classic is D&D made for people who never particulaly enjoyed playing D&D... which your posts above kinda, sorta support. I've seen people talk about many of the things 4e "fixed" that were purely subjective things and I think for many part of what gave D&D a D&D "feel". IMO, Essentials is moving back towards a D&D made for people who enjoyed playing D&D with all it's tropes, idiosyncracies, etc. Do I like all of those things? No, but what I do like about the D&D genre far outweighs what I don't (and I can always houserule stuff in or out.). What I didn't want was the designers deciding that D&D should loose a bunch of things tied to it's history for me. I think many of these tropes give the fanbase a sense of commonality when discussing "D&D" but also tend to define what makes playing D&D different than say playing Runequest, Earthdawn, Dragon Age or Stormbringer. YMMV of course.</blockquote>

Verification