Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5747127" data-attributes="member: 2067">Well, I'm not [MENTION=12328]scourger[/MENTION] , and while I'm a fan of Essentials and believe it takes the current game in the right direction, I can maybe point out a selection of things that would prevent someone from embracing Essentials 4e (that is, potential problems with 4e that Essentials doesn't actually solve):<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Spellcasters don't run out of spells. Wizards don't have a resource management strategy to play with. Magic Missile isn't once per day, it's any time, all day long. That can futz with some people's concept of magic, and some people's idea of what is fun about playing spellcasters.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol"> Powers are fairly indistinguishable from one another. Attack vs. Defense for Damage + Effect. Power sources largely lack unique mechanical signifier. All that's separating a warlord from a cleric is fluff. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol"> The complexity is still quite deep. Though simplified, the intricate details of positioning, equipment, OAs, action economy, and the like, can still be quite overwhelming, especially for someone used to a simpler and less fiddly system.</li>
</ol>That's not comprehensive, but these problems are pretty deeply ingrained into 4e, and while great strides have been made to mitigate them, the core of the matter -- the core of 4e being largely a collection of rules for a minis combat game -- is unlikely to be solved outside of an edition reboot. Personally, I think D&amp;D is functionally a 10-level game. Those ten levels can be different tiers (you're a gardener! you're a hero! you're a god!), but rarely does a group do the whole arc. If you design the game for 10-level play, and just use different &quot;skins&quot; for whichever tiers you want, I think you'd come a long way towards making a system for the way the game is actually used, by and large.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5747127, member: 2067"] Well, I'm not [MENTION=12328]scourger[/MENTION] , and while I'm a fan of Essentials and believe it takes the current game in the right direction, I can maybe point out a selection of things that would prevent someone from embracing Essentials 4e (that is, potential problems with 4e that Essentials doesn't actually solve): [LIST=1] [*] Spellcasters don't run out of spells. Wizards don't have a resource management strategy to play with. Magic Missile isn't once per day, it's any time, all day long. That can futz with some people's concept of magic, and some people's idea of what is fun about playing spellcasters. [*] Powers are fairly indistinguishable from one another. Attack vs. Defense for Damage + Effect. Power sources largely lack unique mechanical signifier. All that's separating a warlord from a cleric is fluff. [*] The complexity is still quite deep. Though simplified, the intricate details of positioning, equipment, OAs, action economy, and the like, can still be quite overwhelming, especially for someone used to a simpler and less fiddly system. [/LIST] That's not comprehensive, but these problems are pretty deeply ingrained into 4e, and while great strides have been made to mitigate them, the core of the matter -- the core of 4e being largely a collection of rules for a minis combat game -- is unlikely to be solved outside of an edition reboot. Personally, I think D&D is functionally a 10-level game. Those ten levels can be different tiers (you're a gardener! you're a hero! you're a god!), but rarely does a group do the whole arc. If you design the game for 10-level play, and just use different "skins" for whichever tiers you want, I think you'd come a long way towards making a system for the way the game is actually used, by and large. [/QUOTE]

Verification