NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5693706" data-attributes="member: 58416">Oddly, I thought the same thing about some of 4E's concepts after the first campaign I played in.  Suffice to say, the usual GM of the group has banned me from ever buying Dimensional Shackles as well as doing many other things which were presented as viable & non-broken options.  However, I will say that -for me- 4E mostly misses the mark on a lot of 'small sense' things and small details.  I also find that -in my opinion- the final 4E product was not the same as what is presented in the preview books (both of which I have and still sometimes read.)  I do expect there to be difference between prototype and actual product; it's natural for an idea to evolve during the design process, but -for me personally- the end 4E product ditched too much of what I found exciting about the 4E previews.  In particular, I find the tone and feel of the game to be vastly different.  Likewise, while I understand why changes were made to some of the rules with each new round of books, I don't feel confident in the direction the changes took the game.  I do feel changes were needed in many aspects of the game due to flawed designs right out of the gate; however, I feel there were instances in which the solution I would have preferred (and the solution that I feel made for a more consistent sent of rules) was much different than the official changes.  An example of this would be how multiple resistances interact with damage types; there are other threads here on Enworld which discus the wonkiness which can arise with how multiple resistances are currently handled.  In my humble opinion, the rules functioned more consistently in their original PHB1 form than they currently do.This post is in no way meant to bash 4E.  It's a game which I play.  Neither is it meant to defend 3E; as someone who played 3E for a long time, I am very familiar with the bugs in the design.  However, as I sit and watch many of these threads, there seems to be (I could be imagining things) an underlying implied message which insists that the 4E methods and ideals are some sort of bastion of excellent design.  There are many things I feel 4th Edition does right and does well, but there are also many things about 4th Edition which I do not believe work well; they prompted  and pushed me to explore rpgs outside of the D&D brand; something I had never willingly done before 4th Edition.</blockquote>

Verification