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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4386707" data-attributes="member: 48965">I agree (somewhat) with what you are saying...However I think the disconnect is also because of a few more things...1. 4th ed. doesn't seem like an extension of 3.x but more of an alternative direction in design.  It doesn't necessarily build on 3.x but instead tears away, IMHO, both good and bad aspects of 3.x to replace alot of it with something from left field.  I was hoping for something more similar to Star Wars Saga ed. (which I think actually refines and evolves 3.5 and is a better game system) than what 4e actually turned out to be.2. I don't think the Fluff of D&D 4e was thought out very well.  And I'm not talking about the power descriptions, but the actual default PoL.  It seems like WotC wanted a more edgier, dangerous and grittier world... yet the playstyle of D&D seems to not only drop the ball here...but at times actually contradict that feel.  The world comes off as Warhammer-esque in feel yet in play it doesn't feel that way.  That coupled with the even more abstract nature of the game can at times give it a surreal feeling that I'm not keen on.3. The killing of "sacred cows"... Contrary to popular belief, some people play D&D to play D&D, there are a multitude of different systems (many which use the same d20 base as D&D if they wanted to change up).  This is perhaps the basis of the "not D&D" feeling people are having.  I get the feeling that many who go so far as to say 3.5 didn't change enough perhaps don't want to play D&D but also, for whatever reasons, don't want to try different games either... not sure how you can accommodate both camps.4. Improvement is a very subjective term... and alot of the change in D&D 4e isn't necessarily an improvement.  I for one am very disappointed in the skill system and the rigidity of the powers... The skills needed some streamlining but I feel a better system would have been to have tiered skills and adequate picks amongst the different types of skills...not to just destroy the option of having a skill that doesn't directly pertain to combat.  and the "Oh your Rogue can learn to use the longsword...but he will never learn to use it with any of his powers."   thing irks me to no end.I also don't believe multi-classing was an improvement...and am actually starting to wonder if the combinations are even balanced against each other.  IME, a Fighter/Wizard is just a better all around choice than a Wizard/Fighter in what is gained.</blockquote>

Verification