Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7749268" data-attributes="member: 6873517">I think once I got the idea for the extended action and some idea of accumulating success before failure I'd managed to add in other skills. I did that a lot, for instance for chases or other non-combat contests even in 2E. 4E SCs often had other skills being a real reach---they were clearly designed for game play to pull in other characters. Admirable but often ham-fisted.  Some of that was in 2E. ??? Not sure what that is. Yes, they were super brittle. I felt Essentials returned some more classic feeling characters like the Slayer, who didn't have the standard package of powers. As to off-turn actions... IME some players really never got used to it. Full on simulation, of course not but I guess at some level I'm an aficionado of what's been called Gygaxian naturalism, to some degree. 4E threw that completely out the window in favor of a cosmological drama. Ironically, I've done my share of cosmological things, but that's stuff I want to design, not have baked into the finish. Another thing I didn't much like was how tiered things were, e.g., orcs for every tier! Again, that breaks with the general idea of Gygaxian naturalism and feels very MMO and gamist. The adventures WotC published were... wow they were a mixed bag at best. There were some good ideas, of course but a lot of them really just felt like elaborate setups for a miniatures set piece. What I don't like is that the same basic mechanic---spellcasting, from selections of the same lists---is used for too many classes. There are also relatively few higher level buff spells. The high level lists in general kind of suck, though.</blockquote>

Verification