Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 4336882" data-attributes="member: 2013">Or, here are some things I think 4e got &quot;right&quot; and some things I think it got &quot;wrong.&quot;&nbsp; This is all my opinion, your mileage may vary.RIGHT: Artifacts.&nbsp; They are now almost like major NPCs in their own right, and have goals, objectives, and (most importantly) are to leave the campaign once that goal is completed.&nbsp; They are no longer &quot;uber magic items.&quot;&nbsp; I love this treatment of them.WRONG: Healing Surges.&nbsp; Hit points have always been &quot;a measure of how tough something is to kill (via sheer toughness, luck, skill, or some combination thereof).&quot;&nbsp; Healing surges really spoil this for me, because this level of abstraction - which has been around since the beginning - is lost.&nbsp; Clerical magic had the &quot;it's magic&quot; explanation (and was in character for a priest) in previous editions.&nbsp; Yes, I know the cleric had to spend all his time healing.&nbsp; But healing surges just don't do it for me.&nbsp; Sorry.RIGHT: A well-balanced, thinking man's combat system.&nbsp; You all but HAVE to cooperate, and it's fairly important to use tactics and work as a group - instead of the old system where, by and large, everyone kind of picked a foe and started slugging away until somebody dropped.&nbsp; There is far more tactical depth in this system.WRONG: The washing out of skills and removal of everything non-combat that provided differentiation of characters. I liked that my samurai could have a non-weapon proficiency of calligraphy or growing bonsai trees. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />RIGHT: Re-mixing spellcasting abilities into &quot;at will&quot; and &quot;encounter&quot; and &quot;daily&quot; powers.&nbsp; The sorcerer in 3E was the first step this way, and the Vancian system is now more or less gone.WRONG: Re-mixing martial abilities into &quot;at will&quot; and &quot;encounter&quot; and &quot;daily&quot; powers.&nbsp; NOT because of the lack of realism, but because it makes every character more or less the same... as a pack of magic-card-like abilities that by and large &quot;break the normal rules.&quot;&nbsp; That feel just seems kind of &quot;eh&quot; to me.&nbsp; I liked when fighters played &quot;by the rules&quot; with attack rolls as combat machines, wizards played &quot;make them save&quot; with spells, rogues/thieves played &quot;use the skill system&quot; and clerics did a little of all of the above plus turning.&nbsp; Now the fighter's &quot;Exploits&quot; play more or less the same as the wizard's &quot;Spells&quot; and the cleric's &quot;Prayers.&quot;&nbsp; Some probably like the homogeneity.&nbsp; I liked heterogeneity.&nbsp; Just a taste thing, I guess.RIGHT: Changing attacks to be vs. AC, Ref, Fort, or Will.&nbsp; Rolls the &quot;saving throws&quot; into the &quot;attack&quot; operation and more or less drops the calculating Touch AC, Flat-footed AC, etc.WRONG: Starting characters are too powerful.&nbsp; I *like* the paper-weak 1st and 2nd- level characters of previous editions who had to really FEAR even the lowliest foe.&nbsp; Levels 1-3 in previous editions provided a MARVELOUS opportunity for characters to gain &quot;real&quot; neophyte experience and the likes and dislikes shaped then can really make for great opportunities for character-shaping down the road.&nbsp; Of course you can role-play having gone through the character's first steps as a proto-hero before he was really a competent adventurer, but it's not quite the same as actually going through it.Just thoughts I wanted to bump off my chest.&nbsp; Nobody else has to agree or disagree with me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 4336882, member: 2013"] Or, here are some things I think 4e got "right" and some things I think it got "wrong." This is all my opinion, your mileage may vary. RIGHT: Artifacts. They are now almost like major NPCs in their own right, and have goals, objectives, and (most importantly) are to leave the campaign once that goal is completed. They are no longer "uber magic items." I love this treatment of them. WRONG: Healing Surges. Hit points have always been "a measure of how tough something is to kill (via sheer toughness, luck, skill, or some combination thereof)." Healing surges really spoil this for me, because this level of abstraction - which has been around since the beginning - is lost. Clerical magic had the "it's magic" explanation (and was in character for a priest) in previous editions. Yes, I know the cleric had to spend all his time healing. But healing surges just don't do it for me. Sorry. RIGHT: A well-balanced, thinking man's combat system. You all but HAVE to cooperate, and it's fairly important to use tactics and work as a group - instead of the old system where, by and large, everyone kind of picked a foe and started slugging away until somebody dropped. There is far more tactical depth in this system. WRONG: The washing out of skills and removal of everything non-combat that provided differentiation of characters. I liked that my samurai could have a non-weapon proficiency of calligraphy or growing bonsai trees. :( RIGHT: Re-mixing spellcasting abilities into "at will" and "encounter" and "daily" powers. The sorcerer in 3E was the first step this way, and the Vancian system is now more or less gone. WRONG: Re-mixing martial abilities into "at will" and "encounter" and "daily" powers. NOT because of the lack of realism, but because it makes every character more or less the same... as a pack of magic-card-like abilities that by and large "break the normal rules." That feel just seems kind of "eh" to me. I liked when fighters played "by the rules" with attack rolls as combat machines, wizards played "make them save" with spells, rogues/thieves played "use the skill system" and clerics did a little of all of the above plus turning. Now the fighter's "Exploits" play more or less the same as the wizard's "Spells" and the cleric's "Prayers." Some probably like the homogeneity. I liked heterogeneity. Just a taste thing, I guess. RIGHT: Changing attacks to be vs. AC, Ref, Fort, or Will. Rolls the "saving throws" into the "attack" operation and more or less drops the calculating Touch AC, Flat-footed AC, etc. WRONG: Starting characters are too powerful. I *like* the paper-weak 1st and 2nd- level characters of previous editions who had to really FEAR even the lowliest foe. Levels 1-3 in previous editions provided a MARVELOUS opportunity for characters to gain "real" neophyte experience and the likes and dislikes shaped then can really make for great opportunities for character-shaping down the road. Of course you can role-play having gone through the character's first steps as a proto-hero before he was really a competent adventurer, but it's not quite the same as actually going through it. Just thoughts I wanted to bump off my chest. Nobody else has to agree or disagree with me. [/QUOTE]

Verification