Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5467780" data-attributes="member: 11300">Yes you can: Bullrush <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=":)" />. &nbsp;Emphasis mine.I think you have caught yourself out here. Firstly, you have your 4e defender shields upped to 75% power and secondly, as soon as you see MTG and 4e mentioned in the same sentence, you think that the comments are automatically bad. Please re-read what I wrote and you will see there is not criticism here or saying this is a bad thing. I am merely stating what seems to me pretty damn obvious. Particularly when you consider the VTT was supposed to launch when 4e was released. In terms of VTT play, such rules clarity is not only preferred but demanded! Perhaps there is no better example of this than how illusions changed from AD&amp;D to 3e to how they are treated in 4e. Powers are related to hp erosion or penalties/bonuses in-combat while out of combat is into deception-based rituals - all of which completely formalizes what used to be the classic &quot;how do I as DM provide a ruling/judgment on this&quot; that would send a computer silly.If there is any criticism I can find, it is the odd little things that such clarity causes such as tripping things that can't physically be tripped (although interpreting tripped as hindered is what most people did/do). Clarity does take away a little of the mystery of the game (which has been steadily eroded through each edition) but in no way do I think that this is a &quot;bad thing&quot;.The things that I don't like about 4e are more related to my preference for a more mysterious, grittier, simulation-style play, not rules clarity. Next time, please take the defender shields down and don't assume that mention of MTG/O or perhaps even boardgames in the same sentence as 4e automatically means a criticism without reading what is written first.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 5467780, member: 11300"] Yes you can: Bullrush :). Emphasis mine. I think you have caught yourself out here. Firstly, you have your 4e defender shields upped to 75% power and secondly, as soon as you see MTG and 4e mentioned in the same sentence, you think that the comments are automatically bad. Please re-read what I wrote and you will see there is not criticism here or saying this is a bad thing. I am merely stating what seems to me pretty damn obvious. Particularly when you consider the VTT was supposed to launch when 4e was released. In terms of VTT play, such rules clarity is not only preferred but demanded! Perhaps there is no better example of this than how illusions changed from AD&D to 3e to how they are treated in 4e. Powers are related to hp erosion or penalties/bonuses in-combat while out of combat is into deception-based rituals - all of which completely formalizes what used to be the classic "how do I as DM provide a ruling/judgment on this" that would send a computer silly. If there is any criticism I can find, it is the odd little things that such clarity causes such as tripping things that can't physically be tripped (although interpreting tripped as hindered is what most people did/do). Clarity does take away a little of the mystery of the game (which has been steadily eroded through each edition) but in no way do I think that this is a "bad thing". The things that I don't like about 4e are more related to my preference for a more mysterious, grittier, simulation-style play, not rules clarity. Next time, [I]please[/I] take the defender shields down and don't assume that mention of MTG/O or perhaps even boardgames in the same sentence as 4e automatically means a criticism without reading what is written first. Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]

Verification