Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4530249" data-attributes="member: 18280">If you remove the word &quot;force&quot; I think that you have 3e on the bare bodkin.&nbsp; The game was designed to encourage minis use, and the 3.5 version of the game encourages minis use even more.&nbsp; 4e, of course, beats both versions of 3.x in terms of mini-focus.&nbsp; Not only that, but the focus of WotC adventures changed to an encounter-based setup that is essentially map/mini placement/tactics for the DM to use with minis.&nbsp; Do you need minis to play any of these games?&nbsp; No, but if you want to have fun with them, then (once you have invested in the system) minis are strongly encouraged by the system itself.&nbsp; However, at the same time, you will be hard pressed to find anything from WotC suggesting that 4e is a &quot;grid-heavy edition&quot;.&nbsp; You might, OTOH, be able to find some suggestions that it is not.It doesn't take a genius to realize that WotC wants to make a profit, or that selling minis is the route to the largest potential profit.&nbsp; I want to make the most money I can at work, too.&nbsp; You might call that greed, but I call that normal.But there is little doubt that WotC did the market survey.&nbsp; There is little doubt that the market survey showed that those who buy minis spend many more times on rpg material what those who do not buy minis spend.&nbsp; And there is little doubt that each successive edition of WotC-D&amp;D is more minicentric than the last.&nbsp; I don't think that the math is so hard to do here, regardless of whether one personally prefers a grid or not.Your idea with the Black Hats sounds good, and truly Old School.Not knowing if an encounter will be extended (with more monsters) when it begins helps remove some of the tedious nature of 4e combat as well (use best encounter powers first, then grind, grind, grind for 20 more minutes....or, if there is no reason not to rest, use dailies, followed by best encounter powers first, then grind, grind, grind for 15 more minutes....).RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4530249, member: 18280"] If you remove the word "force" I think that you have 3e on the bare bodkin. The game was designed to encourage minis use, and the 3.5 version of the game encourages minis use even more. 4e, of course, beats both versions of 3.x in terms of mini-focus. Not only that, but the focus of WotC adventures changed to an encounter-based setup that is essentially map/mini placement/tactics for the DM to use with minis. Do you [i][b]need[/b][/i][b][/b] minis to play any of these games? No, but if you want to have fun with them, then (once you have invested in the system) minis are strongly encouraged by the system itself. [i][b]However[/b][/i][b][/b], at the same time, you will be hard pressed to find anything from WotC suggesting that 4e is a "grid-heavy edition". You might, OTOH, be able to find some suggestions that it is not. It doesn't take a genius to realize that WotC wants to make a profit, or that selling minis is the route to the largest potential profit. I want to make the most money I can at work, too. You might call that greed, but I call that normal. But there is little doubt that WotC did the market survey. There is little doubt that the market survey showed that those who buy minis spend many more times on rpg material what those who do not buy minis spend. And there is little doubt that each successive edition of WotC-D&D is more minicentric than the last. I don't think that the math is so hard to do here, regardless of whether one personally prefers a grid or not. Your idea with the Black Hats sounds good, and truly Old School. Not knowing if an encounter will be extended (with more monsters) when it begins helps remove some of the tedious nature of 4e combat as well (use best encounter powers first, then grind, grind, grind for 20 more minutes....or, if there is no reason not to rest, use dailies, followed by best encounter powers first, then grind, grind, grind for 15 more minutes....). RC [/QUOTE]

Verification