Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5360692" data-attributes="member: 48965">I don't think it's necessarily about how strict balance is... but moreso, how concerned with balance I am with my improvisation could determine whether 4e looses one of it's main selling points... balance between characters. IMO, you don't bill the game this way then expect people to wholeheartedly accept a method that runs counter to it's philosophy... &quot;guesstimation!&quot;... and may in fact disrupt this high point of the game. &nbsp;&nbsp;But if that guy is a leader (or an essentials half-elf) he very much can change general rules for other players. So I don't think it is as clean or as cut and dry as you make it out to be.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Uhm...ok, as a DM I don't need to understand or adudicate other players powers in gameplay? Care to expound?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Again I see a disparity here in how one is expected to improvise (judgement and estimation) with the main philosophy of the game... ballance and symmetry... less so with essentials (because of the changes in structure, roles, etc. of classes and powers but moreso in 4e classic.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Eh, I would say not for planning tactics based around abstract powers, dis-associated mechanics and grid-based combat. I personally think 3.x was more strategy than tactics... in fact I would argue most oldschool play involved more strategic play than actual tactical combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5360692, member: 48965"] I don't think it's necessarily about how strict balance is... but moreso, how concerned with balance I am with my improvisation could determine whether 4e looses one of it's main selling points... balance between characters. IMO, you don't bill the game this way then expect people to wholeheartedly accept a method that runs counter to it's philosophy... "guesstimation!"... and may in fact disrupt this high point of the game. But if that guy is a leader (or an essentials half-elf) he very much can change general rules for other players. So I don't think it is as clean or as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Uhm...ok, as a DM I don't need to understand or adudicate other players powers in gameplay? Care to expound? Again I see a disparity here in how one is expected to improvise (judgement and estimation) with the main philosophy of the game... ballance and symmetry... less so with essentials (because of the changes in structure, roles, etc. of classes and powers but moreso in 4e classic. Eh, I would say not for planning tactics based around abstract powers, dis-associated mechanics and grid-based combat. I personally think 3.x was more strategy than tactics... in fact I would argue most oldschool play involved more strategic play than actual tactical combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification