Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 7518775" data-attributes="member: 59057">I bought the preview books for 4e. And at that time power words were still in. Actually it seemed to me a better version than the final version of 4e. Or even more accurate: it seemed to go downhill from there. They did the mistake listen too much to loud minorities. The paladin desaster comes to mind. An easy to read short ability was translated into lawyer language because someone at a playgest table used divine challenge and hid from the dragon doing a few points of damage every round while his party was one man down. Instead of saying: qho cares because on a normal table it does never happen, they tried to write every power rules lawyer proof and failed miserably.Later, when it was much too late the reverted it to the easier text...And in essentials they proved that assymetrical design can work.I am still believing if essentials was first published in a phb and dmg, combined with a more generous publishing policy we would not have seen pathfinder and might still have played 4e till now. And we might have had a different 5e.Main problem with essentials: there was no audience left for it. Most 4e players embraced the 4e design or already left for a different game.I am a collector and I can find good and bad things in any edition and I played 4e with character builder only and never bought the initial books because they were terribly edited at first and outdated later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 7518775, member: 59057"] I bought the preview books for 4e. And at that time power words were still in. Actually it seemed to me a better version than the final version of 4e. Or even more accurate: it seemed to go downhill from there. They did the mistake listen too much to loud minorities. The paladin desaster comes to mind. An easy to read short ability was translated into lawyer language because someone at a playgest table used divine challenge and hid from the dragon doing a few points of damage every round while his party was one man down. Instead of saying: qho cares because on a normal table it does never happen, they tried to write every power rules lawyer proof and failed miserably. Later, when it was much too late the reverted it to the easier text... And in essentials they proved that assymetrical design can work. I am still believing if essentials was first published in a phb and dmg, combined with a more generous publishing policy we would not have seen pathfinder and might still have played 4e till now. And we might have had a different 5e. Main problem with essentials: there was no audience left for it. Most 4e players embraced the 4e design or already left for a different game. I am a collector and I can find good and bad things in any edition and I played 4e with character builder only and never bought the initial books because they were terribly edited at first and outdated later. [/QUOTE]

Verification