Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4271110" data-attributes="member: 48965">Well, I just wanted to chime in to agree with the original poster.&nbsp; Not only does the 4e core feel incomplete...the bigger font size it uses (in comparison to 3.5), totally negates the argument there wasn't room for them to fit more.&nbsp; Moreso after reading over the books for a while it feels simplistic (which IMHO is totally different from streamlined), and my players even noticed it when making up characters.&nbsp; There just didn't seem like much in the way of options to make characters unique or interesting.&nbsp; In fact creating a character just feels more limited than before.&nbsp; As an example, it is pretty clear a 2-weapon Ranger is just plain better in the long run than one who uses archery, thus there is really only one path to take when it comes to playing a ranger (and people thought optimization wouldn't exist anymore).&nbsp; It's&nbsp; funny how a game with less detailed rules, more pages, less spells, can end up feeling so inadequate next to the 3.5 core, in both options and fluff.&nbsp; I was also really disappointed in the Monster Manual which is one of the driest reads I have ever encountered.&nbsp; People claim they would rather just have game stats...and I guess that's great for experienced DM's, but what about new DM's or even those just looking for inspiration for their stories.&nbsp; These books don't have much to inspire in them and I wonder how that will attract new players as it makes the game seem more dry than before. All in all I'm feeling pretty meh about 4e, and this is in comparison to the 3e core.&nbsp; I will reserve final judgement until we play this weekend but I'm just not really excited about this game after a read through especially in comparison to 3.5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4271110, member: 48965"] Well, I just wanted to chime in to agree with the original poster. Not only does the 4e core feel incomplete...the bigger font size it uses (in comparison to 3.5), totally negates the argument there wasn't room for them to fit more. Moreso after reading over the books for a while it feels simplistic (which IMHO is totally different from streamlined), and my players even noticed it when making up characters. There just didn't seem like much in the way of options to make characters unique or interesting. In fact creating a character just feels more limited than before. As an example, it is pretty clear a 2-weapon Ranger is just plain better in the long run than one who uses archery, thus there is really only one path to take when it comes to playing a ranger (and people thought optimization wouldn't exist anymore). It's funny how a game with less detailed rules, more pages, less spells, can end up feeling so inadequate next to the 3.5 core, in both options and fluff. I was also really disappointed in the Monster Manual which is one of the driest reads I have ever encountered. People claim they would rather just have game stats...and I guess that's great for experienced DM's, but what about new DM's or even those just looking for inspiration for their stories. These books don't have much to inspire in them and I wonder how that will attract new players as it makes the game seem more dry than before. All in all I'm feeling pretty meh about 4e, and this is in comparison to the 3e core. I will reserve final judgement until we play this weekend but I'm just not really excited about this game after a read through especially in comparison to 3.5. [/QUOTE]

Verification