Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6308234" data-attributes="member: 6688277">I dont believe @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=7635" target="_blank">Remathilis</a> (and his welcome to correct me if im wrong) was implying the blame was with him, his players or any furniture in the room. I think he was reflecting that 4e was not conducive for his group. By the way funny post @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=7635" target="_blank">Remathilis</a> .Stop blowing the edition warring trumpet for a second and just accept that there are quite a few groups who have found 4e not to their tastes - and if all these posters experienced similar things then you should at least consider that the rules as such were not presented clearly enough for what type of play you are describing. At least you should be open to consider it. Sure, I have bad players too. This is starting to be a trend in your debate.No it's not. I'm saying rule making on the fly for situations in 5e appears to me, to have less ramifications than in 4e. No, I love 5e. I LOVE IT.I never said I wanted to do that. I'm not sure why you said that.Well, that was my problem with it, it played essentially only one way unless you invested a lot of time to change it. A lot of time. It is a well crafted system, that is requires care when changing things to play a different way. 5e doesnt have that problem - because it was designed differently. It was designed with a basic core with optional modules. It indicates a flexible system - but might lose out on the balance in the long run.  Which is? That it was hard to do a trip, bull's rush, grapple manoeuvre? Really he said that?I'd best not comment. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />Fair enough.I still dont see why 3.x crushed them. From what I have seen on message boards about complaints of 3.x - performing stunts was not one of them. Honestly. That was not even in the top ten 3.x gripe list. Nope. Personally I view 4e as a natural evolution of D&D. There was some good and some bad (for me). I have stolen the good for 5e. I love ritual magic, second wind, surges (as will power, we use it differently)...etc You are completely misrepresenting everything with your statement like bad media. 4e DMG Page 42 "A few combat situations come up rarely enough that the rules for them intentionally aren't covered in the Players Handbook - in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater."From your series of posts, it sounds like your players' stunts were <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">not few;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">not rarely enough;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">not mounted combat; and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">not combat underwater.</li> </ul>It appears the creators of the game were proposing you use the listed powers at least 90+% of the time (depending on your definition of few and rarely enough). According to you your playgroup did not, I put it to you sir that you did not play 4e, but your own hybrid, while the rest of the posters you disparaged did. It really doesnt matter what you played as long as you and your group had fun (most important), but given your groups playstyle you definitely are not the Authoritaaaa on what is and what isn't 4e.Yeah that too was a problem - but our two groups did not use power cards and suffered from the same thing. It was more than just presentation. It was a systemic issue.</blockquote>

Verification