Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pukunui" data-source="post: 4529309" data-attributes="member: 54629">I'm with the people who say that 4e goes too far in some directions but not far enough in others.For me, the biggest disappointment with 4e is that it does not live up to its potential. The final product is not as good as the one hyped up by WotC during the preview period. It does not go far enough in that it fails to include a number of the new ideas, cool features, and evocative flavor from the preview material.It also does not go far enough in terms of simplifying and streamlining the game. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the game hasn't been simplified at all but rather the complexity has merely been shuffled around. For example, 4e is a simpler game to run than 3.5 was, but it is even more complicated to play. For one thing, every class is now a spellcaster - with all the added complexity and bookkeeping that that entails (this is the primary reason one of the other guys in my group doesn't like 4e). For another, while we no longer have to do as much on-the-fly math with stat-adjusting buffs and things like level drain and the like, instead we have to deal with a whole slew of new conditions like marking and ongoing damage and we have to remember that some things happen at the beginning of a turn while other things happen at the end and some things even happen at the end of the next turn ...On the other hand, I think 4e goes too far in the name of balance. I much prefer SWSE's more open-ended, customizable - and ultimately more elegant and streamlined - talent-based class system. 4e's classes seriously feel like straight jackets compared to SWSE's classes. I also think SWSE does a better job dealing with "magic" - by making it a separate system that a) any class can access but b) comes with a cost, they've resolved the "spellcaster class vs nonspellcaster class" balance issues of 3.5. To that end, I think 4e went too far by abandoning a superior class system - which ironically came out of the 4e development process - that is everything that 4e was supposed to be but isn't, at least in terms of elegance and simplicity.I also think 4e goes too far by removing most of the fluff from the MM, especially the individual monster descriptions, and by incorporating a large number of dissociated and heavily "gamist" mechanics (it turns out I'm more of a simulationist than I previously thought).Most of the other issues I have with 4e have already been covered.For the record, there are some areas where I think 4e got it just right. Shifting would be a prime example.</blockquote>

Verification