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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4288028" data-attributes="member: 704">In that case, I would say the question that you should try to answer first is this:  What is it about previous editions of D&D that 'supplied the awesome' for you?  I would have to say that there are plenty of things in the new edition that could bring a few different kinds of awesome.  * Low level characters can be used in knock down drag out fights, taking and giving several hard hits to their opponents.  * Characters are durable enough that a balanced party does not necessarily require a Cleric for a party to survive.  * When you create Maldok the Master of the Arcane, you do not have to spend most of a fight early on hiding and using a crossbow.  You get to kill stuff with magic from day 1.  * When you have run Edward the Great through a year long campaign, you do not have to spend fights basking in Maldoks shadow when his spells allow him to dominate every combat without much help from you.Are there things that older editions managed to do better?  It could very well be the case.   The way powers and classes work, there is a very real risk that playing Maldok wont feel much different than playing Edward.  If you always played the Gnome Bard, not having that in the core rules to start will hurt a great deal.  The blatantly mechanical nature that keeps the races and classes balanced may very well harm your suspension of disbelief.  But based on what I have seen so far, there are no features about 2nd or 3rd edition that I liked that are lacking in 4th Edition.  I was never a fan of classes that sucked at low levels or that started to suck at higher levels.I really am curious to know what it is that 3rd Edition manages to accomplish that 4th Edition cannot?END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification