Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Treebore" data-source="post: 4390266" data-attributes="member: 10177">Yeah, my daughter played too. One of her first comments about her opinion about the game is how much like a video game it felt. She even started citing things from various games she has played on PS2 and Xbox that she was reminded of while we played.I have no doubt 4E is a solid game. The game design department at WOTC does know what they are doing. I just doubt that its going to be the great game, for me, that it apparently is for so many others.I don't like having to keep track of a half dozen things. I don't like the tons of options added by the various at will, per encounter, and per day powers.I like simple. At least simple in comparison to 4E, or 3E. I like class archetypes. I like spell lists. I like a mage who can only cast a couple of spells and better pray to the gods they don't get hit by anything. I like a thief who better not stand toe to toe with a fighter if they expect to live.My sons didn't even want to try out 4E. When I asked them why they said, &quot;I don't want to go back to that kind of complexity.&quot;We are also happy with needing magic items, etc... to help define our characters. The weapons you have on the battle field do define you. Having an RPG or an AK 47 does define your role and options. So does the armor you do or do not wear.So having the Warlord, Paladin, Cleric, defined as defenders, controllers, etc... doesn't bother me, per se, but I felt they are better defined for what I want in the older editions of D&amp;D.I am not someone who wants a &quot;capable of doing everything&quot; PC. I like having a defined and restricted set of things I can do. The fighter-mage-cleric-thief well rounded party still works for me.So I have a lot to look at and observe about how things actually play, but I have yet to start thinking 4E is going to be the &quot;go to&quot; game for me. So far I still feel I am far happier with the system I do use.4E has about 6 more hours to start convincing me otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Treebore, post: 4390266, member: 10177"] Yeah, my daughter played too. One of her first comments about her opinion about the game is how much like a video game it felt. She even started citing things from various games she has played on PS2 and Xbox that she was reminded of while we played. I have no doubt 4E is a solid game. The game design department at WOTC does know what they are doing. I just doubt that its going to be the great game, for me, that it apparently is for so many others. I don't like having to keep track of a half dozen things. I don't like the tons of options added by the various at will, per encounter, and per day powers. I like simple. At least simple in comparison to 4E, or 3E. I like class archetypes. I like spell lists. I like a mage who can only cast a couple of spells and better pray to the gods they don't get hit by anything. I like a thief who better not stand toe to toe with a fighter if they expect to live. My sons didn't even want to try out 4E. When I asked them why they said, "I don't want to go back to that kind of complexity." We are also happy with needing magic items, etc... to help define our characters. The weapons you have on the battle field do define you. Having an RPG or an AK 47 does define your role and options. So does the armor you do or do not wear. So having the Warlord, Paladin, Cleric, defined as defenders, controllers, etc... doesn't bother me, per se, but I felt they are better defined for what I want in the older editions of D&D. I am not someone who wants a "capable of doing everything" PC. I like having a defined and restricted set of things I can do. The fighter-mage-cleric-thief well rounded party still works for me. So I have a lot to look at and observe about how things actually play, but I have yet to start thinking 4E is going to be the "go to" game for me. So far I still feel I am far happier with the system I do use. 4E has about 6 more hours to start convincing me otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification