Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4572077" data-attributes="member: 22424">My group decided against 4e for many of the same reasons as the OP, only much more quickly. (There was also a style issue at play.) The points about combat being fairly predictable and about monsters generally being better than PCs are both things we commented on. And, yes, we did find that the use of powers quickly became very repetitive, even when stacked up against the Fighter's previous &quot;charge and then full attack every round&quot; SOP.We have agreed to revisit the system when and if we can recruit at least two more players (to bring us to the recommended five), but for now we're not going to carry on with the system. If nothing else, this prevents us from becoming totally disillusioned with a game that just didn't work for us (although partly because of the composition of our group).The top three things I did like most about 4e: I really liked the encounter design philosophy, with the emphasis being on facing multiple opponents with different roles (rather than a single monster, or three identical orcs, or whatever). I really liked the concept of skill challenges, even if the math wasn't quite right. And I really liked that monsters were actually able to hit far more often than was previously the case, and could actually use their most interesting abilities without them being either anti-climactic or TPK in scale (as most save-or-dies tended to be - if you saved they often had no effect, but if not you were out of the game).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 4572077, member: 22424"] My group decided against 4e for many of the same reasons as the OP, only much more quickly. (There was also a style issue at play.) The points about combat being fairly predictable and about monsters generally being better than PCs are both things we commented on. And, yes, we did find that the use of powers quickly became very repetitive, even when stacked up against the Fighter's previous "charge and then full attack every round" SOP. We have agreed to revisit the system when and if we can recruit at least two more players (to bring us to the recommended five), but for now we're not going to carry on with the system. If nothing else, this prevents us from becoming totally disillusioned with a game that just didn't work for us (although partly because of the composition of our group). The top three things I [i]did[/i] like most about 4e: I really liked the encounter design philosophy, with the emphasis being on facing multiple opponents with different roles (rather than a single monster, or three identical orcs, or whatever). I really liked the concept of skill challenges, even if the math wasn't quite right. And I really liked that monsters were actually able to hit far more often than was previously the case, and could actually use their most interesting abilities without them being either anti-climactic or TPK in scale (as most save-or-dies tended to be - if you saved they often had no effect, but if not you were out of the game). [/QUOTE]

Verification