Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4620105" data-attributes="member: 710">But then they'd suddenly find out that an adventure whose main challenge is to get through 6 normal encounters and still have time for the final 7th is a little... too easy.If the adventure was written with the assumption of reserve points, the individual encounters could have been harder and more enjoyable. (Assuming the group is &quot;gamismn&quot; oriented and is in for the challenges.)And maybe someone wanted to introduce reserve points so he didn't need healing magic (particularly Clerics). But it turns out that you'd still need a Cleric during combat (since some monsters take almost all your hit points with a full attack). Admittedly, in the second case they would have used the wrong system change, because Reserve Points don't help you here. A. Not neccessarily. Maybe there are changes you don't like, but you find it easier to fix then the issues in the predecessor. B. Agree. But you might be able to re-use a lot, depending on what you invested in. (Converting adventures is easier as one might expect.)C. Sure, but if the new system introduces new problems, why should variant rules not also introduce them? (That would be my point.) And getting support for that is a lot less likely then finding fixes for core rules!D. Sure. This definitely reminds me that I hope Wulf Ratbanes and Raven Crowkings efforts for a &quot;revision&quot; of 3E do not go unnoticed by people that just don't like 4E but are unhappy with 3E (including UA). I find it not hard to believe. But is it hard to believe that some people do not like the variant rules and the house-ruling or fudging or what-else and just don't accept them as a viable answer, either?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4620105, member: 710"] But then they'd suddenly find out that an adventure whose main challenge is to get through 6 normal encounters and still have time for the final 7th is a little... too easy. If the adventure was written with the assumption of reserve points, the individual encounters could have been harder and more enjoyable. (Assuming the group is "gamismn" oriented and is in for the challenges.) And maybe someone wanted to introduce reserve points so he didn't need healing magic (particularly Clerics). But it turns out that you'd still need a Cleric during combat (since some monsters take almost all your hit points with a full attack). Admittedly, in the second case they would have used the wrong system change, because Reserve Points don't help you here. A. Not neccessarily. Maybe there are changes you don't like, but you find it easier to fix then the issues in the predecessor. B. Agree. But you might be able to re-use a lot, depending on what you invested in. (Converting adventures is easier as one might expect.) C. Sure, but if the new system introduces new problems, why should variant rules not also introduce them? (That would be my point.) And getting support for that is a lot less likely then finding fixes for core rules! D. Sure. This definitely reminds me that I hope [I]Wulf Ratbanes[/I] and[I] Raven Crowking[/I]s efforts for a "revision" of 3E do not go unnoticed by people that just don't like 4E but are unhappy with 3E (including UA). I find it not hard to believe. But is it hard to believe that some people do not like the variant rules and the house-ruling or fudging or what-else and just don't accept them as a viable answer, either? [/QUOTE]

Verification