Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SenseiMike" data-source="post: 4479698" data-attributes="member: 77571">It wasn't meant to be condescending, but let's be honest. A lot of DMs do not do well at their game precisely because they didn't prepare adequately or didn't bone up on the game as they should've if they wanted to play. I realize that a lot of people have priorities, as do I, but if you lose much in the process of simplifying a game, then I ask what's the point? I could simplify the rules of Football too by making the field shorter, prohibiting kicks, and allowing only eight men on a field per side, but then it would be Arena League football and not the NFL.   False premise. The previous editions, 3.x probably excluded, didn't exactly tell you to tailor anything to anything, just design your adventure. They did tell you to try not to overwhelm your PCs, if at all possible, with something they couldn't possibly defeat if the purpose of the monster is to be a defeatable challenge. This is key to understand about D&D previously. In 4E, all encounters must be surmountable for the PCs, according to the DMG, and they must be specifically tailored to the PCs in a way they outline. In previous editions, you weren't supposed to really worry if the party had a cleric or not, because, frankly, you as the DM weren't supposed to care that much about them. Because, after all, nobody really loses in an RPG.   This indicates to me that my experiences are vastly different than most other folks, and that's okay. A cleric in a party was no guarantee that the party would even have a chance of surviving anything. It's a false premise that they ever did have such a chance. Magical healing is nice, but if you have a savvy DM it isn't always necessary, unless you play straight forward "dungeon of the month" episodically. I've had groups where there were no spell-caster types in the party, with no clerical or paladinic support, and they did fine. Sure, they had to leave the locale they were at a lot to rest up and heal. All a cleric (or, for that matter, a mage) does is, if you think about it logistically, allow you to spend more time at work in between rest periods.   I love it when 4E defenders resort to hyperbole.  Suppose you wanted to play something like Samwise Gamgee, a halfling who, before he left for Mordor with Master Frodo, had virtually no combat experience whatsoever. Whatever you decide to make him, be it a Rogue (more likely) or a Fighter (I've seen some examples that make him out to be like this, given how he fought Shelob), it's clear that he's not going to be a very strong or agile guy as compared to, say, the Grey Mouser or Tasselhoff Burrfoot. Either way, he's not going to be particularly competent in the contrived "role" of the Striker or Defender. In other words, he's not going to be much of a help in either role in a typical 4E party, and therefore you can't make the character you want.  Conversely, in essence, you can't make a Raistlin or an Elminster either. True, they came out with a Forgotten Realms book for 4E. I haven't seen it yet, but I know for certain that however they've converted Elminster to 4E he is less of the man he once was in previous editions. Wizards are not powerful enough nor can they ever be powerful enough in 4E to match their previous incarnations. Run the numbers if you'd like. But if Wizards are a bit too powerful, how about being someone like Aragorn taking on all those Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep. No way in 4E could you make or develop in levels a character like that, Ranger or Fighter. In previous editions you could over time.   Even Jack Vance had viable explanations for his character's abilities and limitations. In previous editions to D&D, you could get around slots for spells with scrolls, wands, and other devices (especially in 3.x, where you could make such things). And the slot idea wasn't entirely contrived - it was a measure of your ability to channel magic. But Encounter Powers are entirely contrived. There is no in-game explanation for their use. Why can't I use something I learned all the time? Why do I have to wait five minutes or until the next encounter to use an Encounter Power again? Especially if it's a power derived from a Martial source. The only explanation I could fathom was.......game balance.  Game balance. So every time I used an Encounter Power, I no longer thought that I was in a fantasy world, but that I was playing a game. Totally loses the escapism factor, if you get my drift.   Little known fact: I could still make the Paladin I wanted, per the prerequisites, even if I didn't alter them with house rules, far more than anything that could be possibly done in 4E as written. They've even taken away his horse.   Now we're down to sarcasm. I must be making you angry.   Whatever.   Did you really believe that all books published for use for the 3.x system was canon, that all were supposed to be a part of your game whether you wanted it or not? You know...you didn't have to accept every book from every publisher that printed for d20 or 3.x, even if it came from Wizards of the Coast, right? Since it seems that all those splatbooks seem to bother you that much, then, logically, you must've come to that conclusion. I know, I'm using a little hyperbole and sarcasm, but then again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, I figure.</blockquote>

Verification