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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8421249" data-attributes="member: 7032025">So first, it's not my case, I really gave the edition a chance, for quite a few years, with different campaigns and DMs, including myself.But my point is exactly that, don't you think that there are reasons for 4e receiving most of it ? I mean inherent to the game, once more not inherent to its quality, but to its style, and in addition to the simple "OMG they changed it" ?For me, honestly, it was the other way round, I welcomed 4e combat compared to 3e which, especially at high level, took forever. Although, factually, the high levels of 4e did not feel as epic as high levels of 3e and AD&D, because of the constraints of the game, mostly it felt like at lower levels just with bigger numbers (which have never impressed me as all numbers increasing with levels are totally artificial IMHO). But it was faster once mastered.Don't take it badly, but I have pointed this out before, although I hope not at the same level, but I think it's too much of a mish-mash to have abilities shared across so many different classes and roles just for the sake of balance with just basic renaming, for one, and second yes, you can't compare different roles for whom abilities were indeed very different, and you indeed sometimes had different mechanics across classes for the same role, but because in the end it was in an extremely controlled environment, it ended up feeling quite the same to us.Again, not a matter of quality of the game, it was well done, but done in a spirit that did not match our tastes.I'm sorry, but it totally does float. If' you're at or below 0, you are factually dying, the game expressly tells you so, and dying of wounds, not of loss of resolve in most cases (because monsters generally hit you with swords and claw, not with nasty words). So I'm sorry, but it totally breaks my suspension of disbelief that you are again operational because someone is "commanding", you are unconscious and dying.There might be some edge cases where the paradigm works, but it cannot be the standard, otherwise it becomes ridiculous, and both you and Pemerton have said that your way around it is to ignore the "dying" state, and do some retcons. Which again, is fine if you want to do it in your games, but it's not what the game tells you, and if I do what the game tells me, it breaks my suspension of disbelief. This is pure fact.Yes they are. I'm sorry, but dying is dying, written plainly in the rules, and someone with a commanding presence is basically bandaging those wounds for you with just his voice and no magic (and don't get me started about the "fluff" of the Power Sources, whether you use the fluff and it tells you there's no magic, or you don't use it and use direct technical effects like 'dying" but you don't get to choose which fluff you use and which you don't for as direct explanation of the way the system works, although you can of couse do whatever you want in your game) , simple fact and direct application of the rules.And yet, it is the exact paradigm of the 4e wizards: "After an extended rest, you can prepare a number of daily and utility spells according to what you can cast per day for your level." You can use the daily that you prepare exactly once before needing to prepare it again. Vancian to the core.And even you shrug when trying to explain it, so imagine me shrugging even more in despair when trying to fond an explanation that matches the way I envision my fantasy worlds. Because I don't care about the technicalities of a game if it does not match what I want in it, a fantasy world in which characters have fantastic adventures (and if I want to play a combat boardgame, it's another story).</blockquote>

Verification