Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 7785354" data-attributes="member: 19857">Well, I won't go quite that far.&nbsp; The thing about 4e is that while it pared wizards, sorcerers, clerics and other spellcasters down to a handful of options during a battle that were all good, it amped up the number of options that martial characters had by quite a bit.&nbsp; So if you were used to playing a character whose combat options amounted to some variation on &quot;move towards it&quot;, &quot;hit it&quot;, &quot;hit it multiple times&quot;, &quot;move away from it&quot; (maybe with a choice in there to use power attack or whirlwind attack, or not) then analysis paralysis could be a real thing.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; I know a few players who play like that and they hated 4e for that very reason &quot;too many choices&quot; on the playing field - rather than during character creation - killed the game for them.&nbsp; They just want to roll a die and hit a monster, and having a list of options in front of them about how to hit the monster killed their fun.I think this may be a concern with PF2 martial classes from looking at things I've seen - there may be far more options there at the table than some players who play martial characters actually want.&nbsp; But maybe not - the 3 action economy and the fighter feat list that I've glanced through seem like they would support the guy who wants to be the &quot;charge in and hit it multiple times&quot; guy without forcing a lot of extra choices on them at the table, so maybe they cracked that nut.Yes.&nbsp; This.&nbsp; Feats in 4e give the illusion of &quot;depth&quot; without actually giving you any depth.&nbsp; They were easily the most boring thing about character advancement.&nbsp; (Which is part of why I consider the Gamma World 7e ruleset to be the best expression of the 4e game engine - feats are missing from the core game entirely and show up as a mild &quot;career path&quot; optional extension in a supplement.&nbsp; Getting rid of a false choice was a good move.)I have never liked running 1e so I'd rather play it, but I do feel that way about BECMI.&nbsp; And honestly my only player-side experiences with 5e have been so out of line with the way the game is meant to be played that I can't say if my boredom with them on the player side has been due to the game itself or just the experience (I've only played 5e at cons with characters between the levels 1 and 4.&nbsp; This is possibly the worst way I personally could experience 5e D&amp;D for myself - IME as a DM I don't think the game gets meaningfully interesting for experienced players until level 5.&nbsp; For me I think 5e only gets enjoyable with longer-term campaign play if we're starting at level 1 - I've pretty much had my fill of one-shots at tables with level 1 characters at this point...)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 7785354, member: 19857"] Well, I won't go quite that far. The thing about 4e is that while it pared wizards, sorcerers, clerics and other spellcasters down to a handful of options during a battle that were all good, it amped up the number of options that martial characters had by quite a bit. So if you were used to playing a character whose combat options amounted to some variation on "move towards it", "hit it", "hit it multiple times", "move away from it" (maybe with a choice in there to use power attack or whirlwind attack, or not) then analysis paralysis could be a real thing. I know a few players who play like that and they hated 4e for that very reason "too many choices" on the playing field - rather than during character creation - killed the game for them. They just want to roll a die and hit a monster, and having a list of options in front of them about how to hit the monster killed their fun. I think this may be a concern with PF2 martial classes from looking at things I've seen - there may be far more options there at the table than some players who play martial characters actually want. But maybe not - the 3 action economy and the fighter feat list that I've glanced through seem like they would support the guy who wants to be the "charge in and hit it multiple times" guy without forcing a lot of extra choices on them at the table, so maybe they cracked that nut. Yes. This. Feats in 4e give the illusion of "depth" without actually giving you any depth. They were easily the most boring thing about character advancement. (Which is part of why I consider the Gamma World 7e ruleset to be the best expression of the 4e game engine - feats are missing from the core game entirely and show up as a mild "career path" optional extension in a supplement. Getting rid of a false choice was a good move.) I have never liked running 1e so I'd rather play it, but I do feel that way about BECMI. And honestly my only player-side experiences with 5e have been so out of line with the way the game is meant to be played that I can't say if my boredom with them on the player side has been due to the game itself or just the experience (I've only played 5e at cons with characters between the levels 1 and 4. This is possibly the worst way I personally could experience 5e D&D for myself - IME as a DM I don't think the game gets meaningfully interesting for experienced players until level 5. For me I think 5e only gets enjoyable with longer-term campaign play if we're starting at level 1 - I've pretty much had my fill of one-shots at tables with level 1 characters at this point...) [/QUOTE]

Verification