Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 431147" data-attributes="member: 1106">Perhaps not explicitly, but the intended implications seem pretty clear to me.The first point, from someone quoting Grazzt:And the second, from Psion:Your own comment poses a straw man of it's own:As an example, a change I'd like to see which falls into neither Grazzt's nor Psion's categories, nor your own of &quot;change for it's own sake&quot; is greater modularity of rules components and less references and balance interdependencies between them, such that you can switch out those bits you don't like without the hassle of game balance falling out of whack.&nbsp; It would be a feat and a half, but if 4E could pull that rabbit out of the hat, it would be &quot;bettah&quot; than 3E, IMO, and fall into none of your categories.But that's just one opinion, and one possibility.&nbsp; There must be many, many more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 431147, member: 1106"] Perhaps not explicitly, but the intended implications seem pretty clear to me. The first point, from someone quoting Grazzt: And the second, from Psion: Your own comment poses a straw man of it's own: As an example, a change I'd like to see which falls into neither Grazzt's nor Psion's categories, nor your own of "change for it's own sake" is greater modularity of rules components and less references and balance interdependencies between them, such that you can switch out those bits you don't like without the hassle of game balance falling out of whack. It would be a feat and a half, but if 4E could pull that rabbit out of the hat, it would be "bettah" than 3E, IMO, and fall into none of your categories. But that's just one opinion, and one possibility. There must be many, many more. [/QUOTE]

Verification