Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5781019" data-attributes="member: 82160">Thanks for making this post!&nbsp; I completely agree.&nbsp; I have been wanting to post something like this for a while but have been looking for a way to word it.&nbsp; (and may still do that)I was happy to have different levels for classes go in 3rd editon, that was just something I was happy to let go.&nbsp; But every class being soooo similar in 4e was really the dealbreaker for me and my play group.&nbsp;I believe that a lot of the discussion on these forums miss the point.&nbsp; Mainly that a large part of the problem with 4e was that it was OVERLY focussed on combat balance.&nbsp;&nbsp; In fact I remember the designers arguing that there was no way to balance vancian magic with at will fighter-type powers&nbsp; (e.g. attack).I would argue that this largely misses the point of D&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp; The point is to play archetype characters that we see in fantasy, to have an amazing time playing those characters together as part of a team roleplaying through interesting encounters and kicking the bad guys butt.I respect the drive for balance and believe that previous editions needed work to balance play, but I also believe the cost that 4e incurred was not worth it.&nbsp; Everyone needs a spot to shine, but those spots dont all have to be &quot;cause x damange and move the enemy one space&quot;.&nbsp; <ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let the rogue have adventures where he says &quot;well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure&quot;,</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">AND let all classes have different areas to shine in noncombat too!&nbsp; If the bard bypasses a whole adventure or convinces an army to join the party because of his charm it is JUST AS SATISFYIN as &quot;causing x damage&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; I played an illusionist not because I wanted to do as much damage as everyone else, but because I occasionally want to bypass battles because of my whit.</li>
</ul>It's ok if during one adventure, someone shines more then the other, thats what makes D&amp;D characters so darnd interesting.&nbsp; Work to balances forces together, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hanez, post: 5781019, member: 82160"] Thanks for making this post! I completely agree. I have been wanting to post something like this for a while but have been looking for a way to word it. (and may still do that) I was happy to have different levels for classes go in 3rd editon, that was just something I was happy to let go. But every class being soooo similar in 4e was really the dealbreaker for me and my play group. I believe that a lot of the discussion on these forums miss the point. Mainly that a large part of the problem with 4e was that it was OVERLY focussed on combat balance. In fact I remember the designers arguing that there was no way to balance vancian magic with at will fighter-type powers (e.g. attack). I would argue that this largely misses the point of D&D. The point is to play archetype characters that we see in fantasy, to have an amazing time playing those characters together as part of a team roleplaying through interesting encounters and kicking the bad guys butt. I respect the drive for balance and believe that previous editions needed work to balance play, but I also believe the cost that 4e incurred was not worth it. Everyone needs a spot to shine, but those spots dont all have to be "cause x damange and move the enemy one space". [LIST] [*]Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from. [*]Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure", [*]Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army. [*]AND let all classes have different areas to shine in noncombat too! If the bard bypasses a whole adventure or convinces an army to join the party because of his charm it is JUST AS SATISFYIN as "causing x damage". I played an illusionist not because I wanted to do as much damage as everyone else, but because I occasionally want to bypass battles because of my whit. [/LIST] It's ok if during one adventure, someone shines more then the other, thats what makes D&D characters so darnd interesting. Work to balances forces together, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water. [/QUOTE]

Verification