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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5329726" data-attributes="member: 2067">It is actually, necessarily, tied to mechanics. Intimately, in fact. I can't play a good game of D&D using the rules from Monopoly or Backgammon or Rugby. That's true on a buzzword level, but let's look past the vocabulary into what people are actually talking about. Forex, matcolville says that for him, old school feel is tied to the "zero to hero" advancement scheme. 4e does lessen that advancement scheme, in comparison to other editions, through a variety of ways (most prominently, more survivable low-level characters that are capable of great wahoo). For matcolville to have a game closer to that feel, he would need to have low-level characters who are more fragile and not capable of superhuman feats.Now, we can talk about whether or not that would be a good thing from a broader standpoint. Is it possible to have fragile, mortal low-level characters in 4e?The answer, really, is "sure." That's entirely possible. Fragility is easy to add (-10 hp until paragon tier!). Mortal ability is a little harder, but it can still be achieved (essentials? perhaps just re-fluffing the powers?).   You're not likely to see such an idea from WotC themselves, of course. They're convinced that low-level characters should have high survivability, and already be heroes. They're not really concerned with a "zero to hero" advancement scheme. They're firmly in "hero to hero++" territory.But it's always your game, not theirs. Do what you want. If they run their business well, they'll follow what most people want. If what you want is more niche, or they fail to run their business well, it doesn't have to affect your game at all. Have fun in your way. Lead, and WotC might decide to follow.</blockquote>

Verification