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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 4460775" data-attributes="member: 1544">It's a gray area. Not a black and white switch.You could change it in many hundreds of ways and still title it 'Dungeons and Dragons', but in the end it has to FEEL like Dungeons and Dragons. If the feeling isn't right, then it's not the same game anymore, and then it should have a different name.All the previous editions have felt right. 4E has not settled with me, but so far it does not feel right.To be blunt, it feels like I'm playing Magic or some similar CCG system. The fact the DM has printed out cards for all of our powers isn't helping to get past that feeling, but the point remains. This strikes me as a game written for the Pokemon/MtG generation. Everything has to sound cool, even if it's the most minor power in the game. Nothing can be plain or simple because that just doesn't sound cool enough.That's what I was getting at when I suggested removing at-wills. Without those, you'd return to DnD's previous standard of everyone using a normal attack the majority of the time, with the remaining powers being for special situations. In all previous editions, the mage was the only one who could even consider using powers every turn. Everyone else just rolled to hit and damage as per the current 'basic attack'. Somehow that change has put me off.The benefit of many at-will attacks is so negligible that I'd be much happier just removing them altogether. As mentioned earlier, I'd allow the wizard and maybe the warlock to keep theirs, which would go a long way towards differentiating them from the other classes.Put it another way, turn at wills into feats. Maybe place some restriction on which ones you can buy so that you only ever have two from your class, but get rid of the playing card mentality.But to get back to your point, "It's not the same game so get over it" doesn't wash with me, because I remember that argument being used when Vivendi and Irrational games were making Tribes Vengeance. The fan community pointed out hundreds of things that were changing the feel of the game for the worse. The companies just said their making their own game, not the clone of the previous two games in the Tribes franchise. In the end the whole franchise died. Hardly anyone new wanted to play the game, and the previous community was so alienated by the changes that they stopped playing.I'm afraid of that happening to DnD, because I have many of the same misgivings about changes that have been made.If a company wants to make something new, that's fine. But don't make something new, and claim that it's something related to the old game of the same name.</blockquote>

Verification