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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkj" data-source="post: 6097843" data-attributes="member: 18646">To be fair, I think they were pretty careful from the beginning to say that 'supporting any class that was in a first players handbook' did not mean that every one would get its own class. I'm pretty sure if you go listen to the early panels and such, they go out of their way to say that certain previous edition classes might get folded into some other class. That's my memory anyway.I find this debate about whether 4th edition is being used to develop the new edition kind of fascinating. I was a wholesale 4th adopter. I dragged my whole group in with me (sometimes kicking and screaming). I very much like the game and want the 'innovations' from that edition incorporated into the new one. However, I have a much broader take on what 'incorporating 4e innovations' means than some others. Some of general things I want are:-- the underlying math of the system is worked out and understood by the designers (though I'd rather it was more invisible than it is in 4e)-- given that math, the classes are pretty well balanced against one another and they are all fun to play-- That I have easy to use DM tools for building encounters and adventures such that I have a pretty solid idea of how hard a fight I'm throwing at the players. I don't care if every encounter is 'balanced'. I just want to have a pretty good idea of whether it is or isn't.-- That DM'ing and DM prep is easy on the mechanical side such that I can focus on the story when I'm developing an adventure. I want monster design to be easy for the same reason. I don't want to spend ages developing my master villains to the detriment of preparing anything else.There are other things, small and large, but those are a few. And on the whole, I see most of those elements in the current playtest. They seem to get the math and are tweaking it as they go. They've already provided an easy to use encounter building system. Monsters are easy to use. DM'ing and prep is pretty easy. The classes (while still needing work) are all fairly interesting to play. So I love 4e. But I don't have this same feeling of needing an emulation of each particular element. I don't need a separate warlord class so long as my players feel they can build a character that hits what they got out of the warlord. I don't need healing surges, so long as there are options to disentangle party survival from always having a healer character. I don't need at will, encounter, and daily powers for each class so long as each class feels fairly balanced and is fun to play. I don't need a tactical system built into the core-- so long as the option exists to run tactical combats when I feel like it.Don't get me wrong-- It's not that I think those who want warlords as a separate class are wrong. Or that those that think getting the 4e experience (for them) requires healing surges, warlords, and a three tiered power system. It's just that it's not those very specific things that made 4e my current game of choice.Anyway, just rambling. AD</blockquote>

Verification