Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 2041044" data-attributes="member: 13654">Which basically makes it an attempt at a universal system and the inevitable result is that it would be capable of appealing to a lot of different gamers looking for a wide variety of gaming experiences - but then is jack-of-all-trades and master of none.&nbsp; It then in turn FAILS to attract the wide variety of differnt gamers who go with systems DEDICATED to the particular type of gaming they want.Then take Diaglo's repetitive advice and just go with OD&amp;D; or if miniatures won't make you puke then the new &quot;Basic&quot; system (or whatever it's called, but it already exists).Or like 3E with use of any 3rd party source material, Complete handbooks, etc., etc.... in other words - what we have now?You mean - just like you can now?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Honestly, so far I'm not seeing anything &quot;4th edition&quot; in what you're proposing.Magic, IMO, is probably the one area of the game that still has room for heavy improvement.&nbsp; Although many of the 3E rules (stacking/nonstacking effects and bonuses, etc) have eliminated a lot of problems they've also introduced a lot of problems.&nbsp; Even a casual glance at message boards reveals that the vast variety of magical effects and how they mesh with each other remains the single biggest problem area.&nbsp; That's even within the core rules, not the really insane problems you get when mixing editions or third party sources that are unconcerned with maintaining a true balance with the core rules.&nbsp; The vast amounts of errata we get regarding spells and STILL we get DM's rewriting them, nerfing them, house-ruling them, and misunderstanding how to sort it all out.Yep, the magic system could be MUCH tighter yet, although largely I think it would be a matter of VERY CAREFULLY writing each spell with seperate, CLEAR, unmistakeable descriptive and Game-Rule-Effect text portions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D+1, post: 2041044, member: 13654"] Which basically makes it an attempt at a universal system and the inevitable result is that it would be capable of appealing to a lot of different gamers looking for a wide variety of gaming experiences - but then is jack-of-all-trades and master of none. It then in turn FAILS to attract the wide variety of differnt gamers who go with systems DEDICATED to the particular type of gaming they want.Then take Diaglo's repetitive advice and just go with OD&D; or if miniatures won't make you puke then the new "Basic" system (or whatever it's called, but it already exists).Or like 3E with use of any 3rd party source material, Complete handbooks, etc., etc.... in other words - what we have now?You mean - just like you can now? :) Honestly, so far I'm not seeing anything "4th edition" in what you're proposing.Magic, IMO, is probably the one area of the game that still has room for heavy improvement. Although many of the 3E rules (stacking/nonstacking effects and bonuses, etc) have eliminated a lot of problems they've also introduced a lot of problems. Even a casual glance at message boards reveals that the vast variety of magical effects and how they mesh with each other remains the single biggest problem area. That's even within the core rules, not the really insane problems you get when mixing editions or third party sources that are unconcerned with maintaining a true balance with the core rules. The vast amounts of errata we get regarding spells and STILL we get DM's rewriting them, nerfing them, house-ruling them, and misunderstanding how to sort it all out. Yep, the magic system could be MUCH tighter yet, although largely I think it would be a matter of VERY CAREFULLY writing each spell with seperate, CLEAR, unmistakeable descriptive and Game-Rule-Effect text portions. [/QUOTE]

Verification