Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erechel" data-source="post: 6594584" data-attributes="member: 6784868">Off course, I do not complain about balance or cleariness. Somewhat it is exactly my point. If 4 ed wasn't a D&D game, of course I did not even bother in test it, discuss it or even critizice it. I instead would ignore the whole thing as a bearable but not genius game. But it is D&D, so it has press over it. One would expect certain flaws to be corrected, after all, you have the best resources available: the tons of players that already play and played D&D, the tons of game designers, and the history itself, both of victories and mistakes.All i'm saying is that the game fail for his own faults, that aren't at all new.I recognize several great points to 4th edition. Eladrin, for example, are the way I've always play elves. Tactical battle game is not a problem for me, but it would be a mistake to say that you cannot play a tactical battle without calling distance "squares" (as OD&D). My old players could manage to play AD&D very tactical, but somewhat much faster than 4th. They easily (for example) defeat basilisks at first level, or win in a big scale battle (with literally hundreds of soldiers on each side), against better armed and trained soldiers (they leaded a bunch of ragtags, pirates, goblins and a few orcs against heavy infantry (level 2 fighters), cavalry and crossbowmen leaded by a few 8th level knights), without a wizard throwing fireballs or a cleric healing wounds. They were three players playing warriors and one playing a thief.One of the warriors was a chain mailed elf with shield an longsword, leader of the cavalry; the other a half-orc with a big cleave and studded basilisk (high quality, though, but not magic) leather armor, the leader of the goblins and orcs; and the other a myrmidon (fighter's kit), leader of the few heavy infantry. The thief was only a thief, but with high charisma, and the pirates leader. They poisoned the water supplies (not to kill but to hinder), use the territory on their advantage, and light cavalry to take the retaguard and the enemies' camp of their hands while they were attacking. It was memorable. And tactical. And I didn't bend a single rule (I've used a warfare supplement to manage the troops). They out think me, and it was fabulous, and took less than half session. My new players hate my old players because I was very concerned on how to beat them farily once, and I often throw at the parties deadly encounters.In 5ed they could do the same thing. Only better. Tactical is not always choose what "melee spell" to use. Fluidity implies that given a certain course of action, a player can more or less effectively achieve his goals. Charge rules? They are fore every one. A spear does double damage, and I don't need a feat for that.Fluidity means, for me, general rules and specific exceptions, like Magic. On the average, anyone can make anything, only certain people do it a bit worse, and some people do it a bit better.Combat maneuvers are cool, but the compel for optimization is not.And it would be a mistake to say that 5ed doesn't draw anything from 4ed, or that it is an "unbalanced" game. Although there are clearly better character options for certain types of games, all classes are equally capable, and all the multiclassing cheese is severly thwarted. Is not a "broken" game: the books actually give hints and direction to improvisation and creative thinking. It's not a question of metagaming balance here, like it would</blockquote>

Verification