Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nothing to see here" data-source="post: 4128912" data-attributes="member: 16432">I've seen a bit of chatter on these boards and elsewhere about the 'core' classes that will be exclused from the 4e PHB and the concepts that might be excluded as a result.And, I'm actually rather excited about it.I count myself among those gamers who takes great pleasure with tinkering with rules and creating new (monsters/classes/races etc) with any toolbox that I am provided.&nbsp; You know --- the 'gearhead' types.Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but from what I am hearing, 4e will be very tinker-friendly.&nbsp;&nbsp; So as much as I am looking forward to PLAYING the game, I am also looking forward to taking the core concepts in the three main books and CREATING my own version of the bard, druid, barbarian, sorcerer and so on.&nbsp; To me, that's almost as much fun.It's a similar approach with other concerns I've heard.&nbsp; I use a lot of non-combat encounters in my games.&nbsp; If there are not enough non-combat powers in the core lists, I look forward to whipping up some of my own ones based on the guidelines we will be provided.&nbsp; Same thing with NPC concepts -- I'm optimistic that the &quot;monster build&quot; rules can be adapted for new noncombat 'roles' for NPC'sIs anyone else in this same boat?&nbsp; Are there any worries that the 4e ruleset will be less of a toolbox and more difficult to innovate with?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nothing to see here, post: 4128912, member: 16432"] I've seen a bit of chatter on these boards and elsewhere about the 'core' classes that will be exclused from the 4e PHB and the concepts that might be excluded as a result. And, I'm actually rather excited about it. I count myself among those gamers who takes great pleasure with tinkering with rules and creating new (monsters/classes/races etc) with any toolbox that I am provided. You know --- the 'gearhead' types. Perhaps I am overly optimistic, but from what I am hearing, 4e will be very tinker-friendly. So as much as I am looking forward to PLAYING the game, I am also looking forward to taking the core concepts in the three main books and CREATING my own version of the bard, druid, barbarian, sorcerer and so on. To me, that's almost as much fun. It's a similar approach with other concerns I've heard. I use a lot of non-combat encounters in my games. If there are not enough non-combat powers in the core lists, I look forward to whipping up some of my own ones based on the guidelines we will be provided. Same thing with NPC concepts -- I'm optimistic that the "monster build" rules can be adapted for new noncombat 'roles' for NPC's Is anyone else in this same boat? Are there any worries that the 4e ruleset will be less of a toolbox and more difficult to innovate with? [/QUOTE]

Verification