Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6027391" data-attributes="member: 87792">Two fallacies there.&nbsp;1: 4e lasted longer than either 3.5 or 3.0. Are we going to call 3.0 a miserable failure then?&nbsp;2: 4e offered more general non-combat support than any other edition. To the DM it offered a structure and pacing mechanic (Skill Challenges) unmatched by any other edition of D&amp;D. To the PCs it mixed the broad general competence of AD&amp;D characters who rolled attributes with a measure of detail in what they were skilled along the lines of 3.5 but without completely falling at things they weren't skilled at. And then it offered them specialisations in the form of utility powers that allow you to go above and beyond your normal skills.&nbsp;2b: The part of non-combat 4e did not do was give wizards many easy ways to make non-combat situations irrelevant. As @pmerton pointed out, if flight was meant to do something other than resolve situations and bypass a range of non-combat challenges then there would be rules for storms adding problems to flight.&nbsp;So yeah, if you want to call 4e a failure (I don't) then the lesson to take away is that the verson of D&amp;D that is far and away the best set up for non-combat play and allows a lot of non-combat play even compared to 3.X is the one that failed. And the edition you are praising is the one that gives fighters 2+Int points per level and makes Climb, Jump, and Swim into three separate skills (in 4e these are all covered by Athletics) - making 3.X fighters the least competent out of combat characters of any edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6027391, member: 87792"] Two fallacies there. 1: 4e lasted longer than either 3.5 or 3.0. Are we going to call 3.0 a miserable failure then? 2: 4e offered more general [I]non-combat [/I]support than any other edition. To the DM it offered a structure and pacing mechanic (Skill Challenges) unmatched by any other edition of D&D. To the PCs it mixed the broad general competence of AD&D characters who rolled attributes with a measure of detail in what they were skilled along the lines of 3.5 but without completely falling at things they weren't skilled at. And then it offered them specialisations in the form of utility powers that allow you to go above and beyond your normal skills. 2b: The part of non-combat 4e did not do was give wizards many easy ways to make non-combat situations irrelevant. As @pmerton pointed out, if flight was meant to do something other than resolve situations and bypass a range of non-combat challenges then there would be rules for storms adding problems to flight. So yeah, if you want to call 4e a failure (I don't) then the lesson to take away is that the verson of D&D that is far and away the best set up for non-combat play and allows a lot of non-combat play [I]even compared to 3.X[/I] is the one that failed. And the edition you are praising is the one that gives fighters 2+Int points per level and makes Climb, Jump, and Swim into three separate skills (in 4e these are all covered by Athletics) - making 3.X fighters the least competent out of combat characters of any edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification