Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 6781115" data-attributes="member: 59057">I do agree that 4e and essentials were made for different people. 4e was too different for many and the release schedule made it fail. Also designers listen too much to powergamers who analyzed the game by combining effects that made no sense in the world.Those things were changed again and again, just because some classes did a few more points of damage or because there was in a weird way of reading a power that caused the character to do indefinate damage.Also 4e was hurt by the designers pulling 3e and making it sound that 3e was bad wrong fun, which it was not.So fan and hater reaction combined with the designer's handling of 4e doomed it. Nothing wrong with the edition in general.My thesis was just: the change to 4e essentials would have been swallowed more easily by the 3e people and if it came first, maybe they had given it a fair shot because most absurd claims like all class being the same an&nbsp; so on could not have made.5e has ao many elements of 4e, carefully hidden in a game that reads and feals like editions past. 4e essentials also felt much more similar to 3e. But it was too late for 3e people and looked at from the position of a 4e gamer as a step back, which it was.Only thing that was still annoying with essentials: powergamerarchmchairdesigner who didn't understand the power of the essential classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 6781115, member: 59057"] I do agree that 4e and essentials were made for different people. 4e was too different for many and the release schedule made it fail. Also designers listen too much to powergamers who analyzed the game by combining effects that made no sense in the world. Those things were changed again and again, just because some classes did a few more points of damage or because there was in a weird way of reading a power that caused the character to do indefinate damage. Also 4e was hurt by the designers pulling 3e and making it sound that 3e was bad wrong fun, which it was not. So fan and hater reaction combined with the designer's handling of 4e doomed it. Nothing wrong with the edition in general. My thesis was just: the change to 4e essentials would have been swallowed more easily by the 3e people and if it came first, maybe they had given it a fair shot because most absurd claims like all class being the same an so on could not have made. 5e has ao many elements of 4e, carefully hidden in a game that reads and feals like editions past. 4e essentials also felt much more similar to 3e. But it was too late for 3e people and looked at from the position of a 4e gamer as a step back, which it was. Only thing that was still annoying with essentials: powergamerarchmchairdesigner who didn't understand the power of the essential classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification