Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gort" data-source="post: 4507940" data-attributes="member: 11239">Say what you like about 4e magic, but I'd take pretty much anything over the buff-fest 3e magic turns into at later levels. Players with literally dozens of buffs running at a time who are virtually useless in combat without them is not fun at all. It's even less fun when you get hit by a dispel magic and have to work out what your character looks like when seven of his twenty-one ongoing magical effects go away.It feels a lot like people are actually complaining that 4e is balanced in these threads. I for one like that a game at epic levels actually resembles one at lower levels. I like that I can run an epic level enemy against the party that doesn't need to be able to cast 400 different spells (&quot;casts spells as an 18th level wizard&quot;, anyone?) or have a full A4 page of abilities. I can just use something out of the book, slap it on the table, and not have to worry about how it's going to avoid some of the ridiculous powers the wizard can just bust out at will. It doesn't matter if he actually uses them or not, the fact that he might decide to be (for instance) flying and invisible for the entire fight means that I (as GM) need to think of a countermeasure for it. And after a while, having to spend ages countering everything a wizard has in his nigh-limitless bag of tricks just gets old.I like 4e. I'm not sure if a lot of the people who keep hating on it in the 4e rules discussion forum aren't comparing it to some rose-tinted version of D&amp;D 3e that didn't simply break down horribly at higher levels.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gort, post: 4507940, member: 11239"] Say what you like about 4e magic, but I'd take pretty much anything over the buff-fest 3e magic turns into at later levels. Players with literally dozens of buffs running at a time who are virtually useless in combat without them is not fun at all. It's even less fun when you get hit by a dispel magic and have to work out what your character looks like when seven of his twenty-one ongoing magical effects go away. It feels a lot like people are actually [i]complaining[/i] that 4e is balanced in these threads. I for one like that a game at epic levels actually resembles one at lower levels. I like that I can run an epic level enemy against the party that doesn't need to be able to cast 400 different spells ("casts spells as an 18th level wizard", anyone?) or have a full A4 page of abilities. I can just use something out of the book, slap it on the table, and not have to worry about how it's going to avoid some of the ridiculous powers the wizard can just bust out at will. It doesn't matter if he actually uses them or not, the fact that he might decide to be (for instance) flying and invisible for the entire fight means that I (as GM) need to think of a countermeasure for it. And after a while, having to spend ages countering everything a wizard has in his nigh-limitless bag of tricks just gets old. I like 4e. I'm not sure if a lot of the people who keep hating on it in the 4e rules discussion forum aren't comparing it to some rose-tinted version of D&D 3e that didn't simply break down horribly at higher levels. [/QUOTE]

Verification