Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8949520" data-attributes="member: 6915329">No. I'm giving you a couple of examples based on my memories from looking through those books when they first came out. There was nothing in them that interested me, and that's why I wrote what I wrote as to how I would redo 4e.Those weren't the only reasons I saw that the edition was so combat-heavy, but they are some of the bigger ones.And yet, I rarely see 2e, 3x, or 5e being compared to a tactical combat video game.This makes no sense. Giving a monster a combat use and a non-combat use isn't saying that the monster can't be used in combat.That's why I referred to the lore, which was very lacking in the first 4e MM, and became just as poor in recent 5e books. Compare, say, 5e's hags with 4e's hags. Fifteen paragraphs of flavor text versus just one."Effective" is a loaded term. What's the game like? If you think of D&D as little more than a combat simulator with medieval dressing, then sure, a non-combat or low-damage character isn't "effective." If you think of D&D as a storytelling game, wherein one plays a role, where combat is just one means to an end, then a non-combat or low-damage character is perfectly effective, and can be a lot of fun. And I prefer to think of D&D as a storytelling game.And this is my problem. I shouldn't need to buy PHB2 and a dozen issues of Dragon Magazine just to be able to roleplay effectively.But the point is, I could mostly have non-combat cantrips and one or two combat cantrips as a back-up, and either not use them or use them sparingly. I couldn't do that with 4e.</blockquote>

Verification