Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5360519" data-attributes="member: 48965">Well I can't speak for KM but IMO, your posts do seem to come off with more than a bit of essentials hate. Which is cool because everyone has their own oppinions on stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp;Again, I feel you are missing the bigger picture. Technically what you descriube above can be done in any fantasy game with monsters... find an example of a monster with a power you want and in the level range you're looking for and slap it on another monster. The problem is that &quot;guesstimation&quot; isn't really a good system, especially with the multitude of unforseen synergies that may arise between powers, as well as the tactical nature of 4e combat. &nbsp;No one here is asking for an exact &quot;Trip&quot; power with every permutation categorized, and it's condescending statements like the one above that people may be reading your dislike about certain things from. However I would like the rules and guidelines that the designers use to create powers with.&nbsp;&nbsp;Neither the DMG or PHB had guidelines for improvising particular skills... and honestly the SC advice and rules in the DMG were crap, IMO of course. I'm curious... have you read the book from the DM's kit? If not how are you able to compare and contrast it's advice vs. the original DMG? If you are only comparing the RC... which I still feel is better about improvising than the PHB was... you aren't comparing the same types of books. &nbsp;&nbsp;Well no one is forcing you to play it. I mean if you don't see it as an improvement that's cool but I haven't seen you articulate in any objective way why. I haven't seen you say what information is missing from the DM book in essentials vs. DMG or anything of that nature. It seems like you don'tlike it because it's not the same old 4e. I could be wrong though and I invite you to give some specifics on what it is you don'tlike about essentials.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5360519, member: 48965"] Well I can't speak for KM but IMO, your posts do seem to come off with more than a bit of essentials hate. Which is cool because everyone has their own oppinions on stuff. Again, I feel you are missing the bigger picture. Technically what you descriube above can be done in any fantasy game with monsters... find an example of a monster with a power you want and in the level range you're looking for and slap it on another monster. The problem is that "guesstimation" isn't really a good system, especially with the multitude of unforseen synergies that may arise between powers, as well as the tactical nature of 4e combat. No one here is asking for an exact "Trip" power with every permutation categorized, and it's condescending statements like the one above that people may be reading your dislike about certain things from. However I would like the rules and guidelines that the designers use to create powers with. Neither the DMG or PHB had guidelines for improvising particular skills... and honestly the SC advice and rules in the DMG were crap, IMO of course. I'm curious... have you read the book from the DM's kit? If not how are you able to compare and contrast it's advice vs. the original DMG? If you are only comparing the RC... which I still feel is better about improvising than the PHB was... you aren't comparing the same types of books. Well no one is forcing you to play it. I mean if you don't see it as an improvement that's cool but I haven't seen you articulate in any objective way why. I haven't seen you say what information is missing from the DM book in essentials vs. DMG or anything of that nature. It seems like you don'tlike it because it's not the same old 4e. I could be wrong though and I invite you to give some specifics on what it is you don'tlike about essentials. [/QUOTE]

Verification