Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 3783187" data-attributes="member: 15999">I'd hope that 4E would address the things that were introduced in 3E but turned out to be poor design choices, sometimes in ways that the designers hadn't foreseen.Iterative attacks keep fighters viable at high levels, but slow down the game quite a bit, especially due to the variable math.Skills are in general a great 3E addition, but do increase the time needed to stat out high-level multiclassed NPCs.Two-handed weapons were improved SO much that they were just as dominant as the twin-longsword fighter was in 2E.&nbsp; There needs to be some sort of correction here.Escalating ability scores (no &quot;18 max, absolute&quot; as in B/X or &quot;25 max, absolute&quot; as in 2E) were a 3E innovation. An expanded selection of buff spells was new to 3E, and somewhat problematic -- contributes to the &quot;nova&quot; approach and the 9-9:15 adventuring day.Variable-math feats (especially Power Attack) really slow down the game for some players -- either those who are bad at math or those who try to min-max the decision.Stacking bonuses of varying types slow down the game and make the PCs vastly overpowered.The concept of &quot;monsters are built using the same rules as PCs&quot; was a 3E innovation that I liked, but Mearls clearly doesn't like.Now, while fixing the 3E bugs, I really wish they'd keep things that go further back and make the game feel to me like D&amp;D.Characters starting weak (but still a step above commoners) and -- if they survive -- growing in power.&nbsp; 1st-level PCs with more HP than an ogre don't feel right to me.Wizards starting very weak but -- if they survive -- eventually becoming very powerful.&nbsp; That risk/reward has always appealed to me, and explains why wizards haven't taken over the world, but as a design principle the 4E team don't like it.Real risk of PC death -- this is a campaign-specific thing, but different rulesets imply a different &quot;default&quot; lethality.Paladins being lawful good, the epitome of heroism. Stripped of that iconic archetype, they're just a fighter/cleric.And finally, they're addressing problems that I don't think are problems.Bards are weak?&nbsp; Not in my experience, as I've said before.Dead levels?&nbsp; What?&nbsp; Huh?&nbsp; BAB, saves, skills, and a feat aren't enough?Desperate wizards resorting to staves or daggers is bad game design?&nbsp; I thought that was a feature, not a bug.
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 3783187, member: 15999"] I'd hope that 4E would address the things that were introduced in 3E but turned out to be poor design choices, sometimes in ways that the designers hadn't foreseen. Iterative attacks keep fighters viable at high levels, but slow down the game quite a bit, especially due to the variable math. Skills are in general a great 3E addition, but do increase the time needed to stat out high-level multiclassed NPCs. Two-handed weapons were improved SO much that they were just as dominant as the twin-longsword fighter was in 2E. There needs to be some sort of correction here. Escalating ability scores (no "18 max, absolute" as in B/X or "25 max, absolute" as in 2E) were a 3E innovation. An expanded selection of buff spells was new to 3E, and somewhat problematic -- contributes to the "nova" approach and the 9-9:15 adventuring day. Variable-math feats (especially Power Attack) really slow down the game for some players -- either those who are bad at math or those who try to min-max the decision. Stacking bonuses of varying types slow down the game and make the PCs vastly overpowered. The concept of "monsters are built using the same rules as PCs" was a 3E innovation that I liked, but Mearls clearly doesn't like. Now, while fixing the 3E bugs, I really wish they'd keep things that go further back and make the game feel to me like D&D. Characters starting weak (but still a step above commoners) and -- if they survive -- growing in power. 1st-level PCs with more HP than an ogre don't feel right to me. Wizards starting very weak but -- if they survive -- eventually becoming very powerful. That risk/reward has always appealed to me, and explains why wizards haven't taken over the world, but as a design principle the 4E team don't like it. Real risk of PC death -- this is a campaign-specific thing, but different rulesets imply a different "default" lethality. Paladins being lawful good, the epitome of heroism. Stripped of that iconic archetype, they're just a fighter/cleric. And finally, they're addressing problems that I don't think are problems. Bards are weak? Not in my experience, as I've said before. Dead levels? What? Huh? BAB, saves, skills, and a feat aren't enough? Desperate wizards resorting to staves or daggers is bad game design? I thought that was a feature, not a bug.[list] [/list] [/QUOTE]

Verification