Gizmoduck5000 said:
So what you mean to tell me is, that the OP's opinion based around impressions gleaned from an actual play session with the game...is completely invalid?
Is this what you're telling me?
First of all, I responded to you asking Kzach, not the OP, about what the most thoughtful anti-4e argument on these boards was.
But if you want to talk about the OP's arguments, I do find them pretty bad, or shall we say, not relevant. Lets take a look at them.
You can't play 4e without miniatures: His argument is based on the word of some random goon, while we have had both play-testers, designers and 4e-lite testers post here and say the exact opposite. I will take their word over some random guy in a shop. I admit that I haven't tried during my own play-testing, since I have been using miniatures since '89, and like it.
Next argument.
Use your at-will powers instead of your standard attacks is bad. This supposedly puts off his grognard sense (is that like a spider sense, warning him about crappy rules?). Well, I am not sure what to say. Yes it is different than before, and obviously he doesn't like the fact that all classes actually have something interesting to do every round, aside from a normal, boring attack, but is it a valid argument? Well, lots of old-schoolers around here seem to like it a lot, so...
After that, he rants about the
off-the-scale HPs that are negated by the wizard taking more damage, so it doesn't matter, he even cites an example, that his wizard of 20 hps is taking around 10-15 damage per round (which must be multiple attacks or a gross exaggeration, because very few monsters in the game he was part of does that much on one attack). So wait, his wizard is able to still take multiple hits for a round or two before dying? How the hell was this possible in 2e, which is what he was playing? I smell something now, and it ain't roses.
Then he goes on to complain about
how much there is to track. Granted, there is more than in 1e and 2e, at least for the DM, but compared to 3.5, it is a breeze so far (at least from what we know).
Last but not least, he speaks of the skill challenge. He says
One character succeeded in his roll and the DM merely said "okay, you get a lead on a safe way out of town." In my own game, that would have been a golden role-playing opportunity that might have taken half an hour or more. But here it was done with a single die-roll.
We know for a fact that skill challenges are not resolved with a single die roll, so the DM must have either sucked, not understood the concept, or hurried things along for whatever reason he deemed necessary. I am fairly sure that most able DM's would have included an amount of roleplay in it as well. Basing your opinion on 4e on that argument, would indeed seem very silly, right?
Anyway, I am not saying he isn't allowed to feel as he feels, after all, who am I to decide that. I am just saying, that most of his arguments have been refuted by either prominent WoTC people, play-testers, or extensive 4e-Lite play-testers on these boards. Those arguments that do not fall in one of those two categories, are weak to say the least, and based on some obscure preference.
