Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5616768" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, you made a rather incredible statement, so I figure you'd have source for that. You're right of course, OTOH I think extraordinary statements are things I am probably not going to swallow on the basis of hearsay. In any case it is immaterial what Andy Collins said. I've worked on games. Any such statement is as credible as pink flying elephants. It clearly wasn't designed that way. I don't at all doubt they had a core concept and resolution mechanisms and such, those are obviously parts of a game you design from a basically mechanical perspective, but it just isn't possible to design classes and such that way any more than it is for elephants to fly.I'm actually not really so sure that was the intent. I think some aspects of the game were aimed at being easier to refluff. I don't know that the general idea was to make the game in any way less of an RPG. In fact the game shows many signs that they thought deeply about the nature of RP and how it should relate to game mechanics. You may well disagree with them on that and see it differently.Well, I can't say what you read and where you read it. I regularly read a number of game design related sites and what AFAIK are the main sites where 4e is a regular topic. Yet I have NEVER seen anyone seriously assert that 4e and 3e play the same. I say 'seriously' because of course the Internet is filled with all sorts of odd opinions, but this is not IME a major theme or even a significant opinion. I get the impression that you're being hyperbolic, but perhaps there is a whole 'net full of sites I know nothing about where this peculiar opinion holds sway. Anything is possible...You can make a big strong warrior, yes, but you cannot PLAY said character as such because you'll be completely overshadowed by any garden variety full caster. Your plot significance is nil and your only real function in combat is to clean up the threats that aren't worth bothering with a spell for and playing lineman for the casters. This is perfectly fine, it doesn't make a bad game, it just makes a LIMITED game. One who's limitations IMHO have been overcome by a more flexible design.Right, there's some kind of rule in 4e or lack of some rule that turns my character into a 3 dimensional fully realized character? This is utterly preposterous. Nothing about 4e characters is 'homogeneous' either. The game simply allows all characters to participate and doesn't ABSOLUTELY DEPEND on specific elements of play. Sometimes I have to wonder if people who make these kinds of statements have played with an even moderately talented DM. YOU may have experienced 4e this way, and I feel your pain, but I think you're confusing cause and effect here.Yes, well, that won't happen in 3e. Instead you're just pigeonholed into a few (and in the case of a fighter a VERY few) narrow skills. We can debate the pros and cons of different skill system mechanics all day, but IME there is no perfect solution. My opinion is that people spend far too much time harping on these kinds of largely theoretical 'issues'. Who cares if my 30th level fighter is roughly as knowledgeable about Arcana as an optimized 1st level wizard? Is he really ever going to compare his Arcana skill to that of a situation intended for low level characters where this is going to matter? It is just irrelevant. In all my 35 years of DMing I have yet to see this situation arise. Why thank you.</blockquote>

Verification