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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 5301544" data-attributes="member: 30678">Well, clerics as heal-bots was more of a problem in AD&D than 3E; in 3E clerics became "buff-bots". In fact, most clerics I've played with used their first rounds buffing *themselves*, and then stepped to the frontline to completely destroy the baddies in melee.I'm afraid that 4E has emphasized tactical combat a bit too much for my taste; I was never really good at it, and I feel combat in 3E was about as much as I could handle. However, I'm hoping that 'Essentials' downplays this a bit with stances and "simplified" powers, because I would like to try playing and running 4E, but I feel a bit overwhelmed with all that I've seen of the core stuff.At the moment I'm running and playing PF RPG; I feel it has added a lot of options via talents and feats, but without it all becoming too complex. And very "specialized" combat feats and class variants have made certain archetypes actually viable choices -- for example, for the first time I might actually play a dwarven ranger or a polearm specialist or a sword-and-board fighter. If the 'Essentials' line still feels too complex, I can always keep on playing PF. Well, in the end 4E does not give any more narrativistic control to the player than any other edition, because the final say is still on the DM; if the DM thinks a player's description is over the top, it doesn't happen that way. The only exception I can think of are the Skill Challenges, and only if the DM asks the players to describe what and how they're trying to accomplish with each check. I *do* agree with you that it *is* best to give as much narrativistic control to the players as possible, but it's not "hardwired" to the rules in the same way Indie RPGs do it.</blockquote>

Verification