Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="STARP_Social_Officer" data-source="post: 4378665" data-attributes="member: 41202">Wow, what a lot of debate I've generated. My work here is done...Actually it isn't. Let me respond to some of the comments and clarify a few positions...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PLAYS LIKE A VIDEO GAME:</li> </ul>I stand by my comment, but I understand why people might disagree.The reason I say this is because a great many aspects of the new rules seem uncannily similar, by co-incidence or design, to certain MMOs and other RPG video games. Healing, for instance, but also the 'powers at will' and the like which look to me (and I'm giving my opinion, remember) like 'special moves' in platform games. Not so much the skill set - the gag about the holding of button B was just that - a gag. But certainly the whole game seems designed around what a character can do in combat. There's more to D&D than just combat, but the new rules seem very combat-focused. Maybe 'video game' was a poor choice of analogy. I agree with the poster who suggested it is akin to a tabletop miniatures game - the measurement of distance in 'squares' is your evidence of that. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">NERFING OF CLASSES (ESP WIZARDS)</li> </ul>Even if the Wizard is more versatile than other classes, it's nowhere near as versatile as it used to be. And I totally refute that wizards dominated or could mimic other classes under 3E/3.5- I never once found that. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">WHETHER OR NOT I'M ALLOWED TO DIS 4th EDITION</li> </ul>I can if I want to. I agree with the sentiment of Bump2daWiza, namely that everybody was bound to have an opinion and that some of those opinions would always differ from others. I just wish he hadn't used the exact phrase he used.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">OUR GROUP DYNAMIC</li> </ul>In response to Blargney's question, we had 3 PCs - a human paladin (me), a human cleric and a tiefling warlock. And if anybody mentions that with only 3 PCs the DM should have scaled the adventure, let me say that you are dead right and we told him so. However, I maintain that if the rules are such that you need all character types (you'll note we had only 1 meat shield) to do well, something's gone wrong.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">STORYTELLING</li> </ul>A few posters put their fingers on this, and for my money they're spot on. The old rules felt more 'realistic', insofar as you can have realism when you're talking about fire-breathing reptiles and turning people into monkeys. The old rules had a kind of pseudo-science you could inject. Wizards got their spells per day. Every day they prepared spells and those were the ones they cast. Ditto clerics and everybody else (except sorcerers). Easy to understand and to base your storytelling around. But now, some abilities are 'per encounter'. How do you storytell that? Whats the pseudo-science there? I know that for some people that won't matter, but it matters to me. I like to be able to tell coherent stories with my roleplaying, be I the DM or the player, and I feel my ability to do that in 4E has sufferred. In fact, I should have mentioned this in relation to the 'video game' debate. Basically, the gist of my point is that 4E feels much more like roll-playing than role-playing. More thought is given to what a character can do than what a character is. For instance, someone mentioned that elves didn't make good wizards before. I dispute that claim regardless, but what's more important is not whether the character was 'good' by game dynamics (ie. min-maxed or 'munchkinned') but whether they were a good character. The feel of 4E seems very munchkin to me - character is less important than stats. Also, it's far too hard to die. Characters ought to be able to be killed occasionally. Not often, just...occasionally. Keeps everybody on their toes.</blockquote>

Verification