Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derro" data-source="post: 4502375" data-attributes="member: 51010">I've played enough 4e to isolate what I don't like. And what I don't like is a major part of being on the player's side of the screen. There's plenty of stuff I do like but it'll never get used because I'm not going to invest my time and money in mastering a system that doesn't work for me on many major levels.Some people think cucumbers are better pickled? I don't see how you role-play a dragon not being tripped. The common language of any game is the rules. Rules and role-playing are not the same thing. If a player makes an assumption that they can perform a task or action based on the rules and the DM demands something else then the common language has broken down. You can't excuse poorly wrought language by saying that it can be clarified. The product needs to be finished not a work in progress otherwise it is being consumed under an air of dishonesty.Disarm, sunder, over-run, two-weapon fighting, fighting defensively, total defense, grapple (problematic though it was), bullrush, feint, trip. Now I'm not saying that none of these options are available in 4e but they are all available in 3e without artificial and arbitrary class or use limitations.That is an argument lacking foundation. The point of this thread is that 4e lacks certain things. It is not a defense to say the missing elements are coming down the pike. The point is that the game is incomplete. Many fantasy archetypes are missing or poorly represented (I'm looking at you, Barbarian) and the sense of incompleteness is a problem for people that like D&D but want to play a complete game that fulfills their needs. I think the lack of fluff complaints are directed toward monsters, mainly. That is a valid argument since monster fluff is directed toward the DM for purposes of inspiration. Since 4e is re-marketing D&D as an entry level game suitable for new players, and presumably new DMs, this lack of inspirational material is vexing. Saying that ecologies and the like are available through DDI or Dragon does nothing but re-affirm the statement that the game is incomplete.Complaints around the Barbarian fluff are centered around the fact that the Barbarian is representational of one narrow niche of what the Barbarian could be. I'm not a big fan of implied fluff. The Primal power source is obviously mystical. That may not sit well with people that view the Barbarian through the lens of Howard, de Camp, or Lee. I don't know what to say to this. Are you saying that D&D is being aimed at a younger audience as a gateway RPG perhaps? Maybe, that in an effort to introduce the game to a new audience, many nuances and traditions have been altered or removed to garner a new generation of players while alienating many people who have been loyal to the brand for years. Shocking.</blockquote>

Verification