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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5642006" data-attributes="member: 22424">Funny. Four years ago, people said the same about 4e - it was being designed in large part for the tastes of people who weren't buying the books. It turns out that the number of people not buying D&D is always higher than the number who are.If WotC are already at the point where they feel they have to produce a new edition, it means 4e has failed utterly. If that is the case, then everything is up for grabs again - there's no point in giving particular weight to anything that 4e does.(Of course, that's a mighty big 'if' in the paragraph above. Frankly, it's too soon for 5e, so I'm rather hoping we're not at that point.)Can someone cover me for XP? Because this is just hilarious.Look, I'll readily admit to the flaws of 3e, and I'll gladly noted the improvements that 4e made.But I can run most 3e encounters in a fraction of the time it takes in 4e. In many cases, I can run the 3e encounter in less time that it takes to set up the 4e encounter (because I can happily run 3e without minis; the same is not true of 4e). And even a simple combat of 1st level PCs vs run-of-the-mill kobolds takes at least 40 minutes in 4e (and playing under other DMs I've found that this is consistent). That is most certainly not an improvement, and if combat is right at the heart of the game, then it's a major problem.And as for Pathfinder: you can be as dismissive as you like, but if 4e was as manifestly great as you say then there would be no niche for Pathfinder to even exist, never mind to thrive. And for it to even be considered as real competition for D&D should be laughable, and yet somehow is not.</blockquote>

Verification