Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pssthpok" data-source="post: 5054206" data-attributes="member: 34725">Well, I think you've fully answered my question. You can stop selling it so hard. <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=":)" />When it comes to the disassociated mechanics of 4E, you drain it all down with a tall glass of &quot;still better than 3rd&quot;. While that position is largely unassailable, the burden of bad design still weighs heavily over these elements of 4E. I was hoping you'd help these elements make sense in situ, but all you've actually managed to do is exaggerate my comments and take them in the wrong context. Designing monsters and encounters in 4E is intuitive and easy and fun. Explaining marks and why my fighter can only enter a stance once per day is not. These are sloppy mechanics, regardless of how bad 3E is by comparison.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pssthpok, post: 5054206, member: 34725"] Well, I think you've fully answered my question. You can stop selling it so hard. :) When it comes to the disassociated mechanics of 4E, you drain it all down with a tall glass of "still better than 3rd". While that position is largely unassailable, the burden of bad design still weighs heavily over these elements of 4E. I was hoping you'd help these elements make sense [i]in situ[/i], but all you've actually managed to do is exaggerate my comments and take them in the wrong context. Designing monsters and encounters in 4E is intuitive and easy and fun. Explaining marks and why my fighter can only enter a stance once per day is not. These are sloppy mechanics, regardless of how bad 3E is by comparison. [/QUOTE]

Verification