Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Treebore" data-source="post: 4390725" data-attributes="member: 10177">I would like to avoid another edition war thread. Besides, I am not comparing 4E to 3E. My system of choice is C&amp;C. So 4E is going to have to beat my love for C&amp;C to become my new &quot;go to&quot; game.There are lots of things I love from other editions of D&amp;D. Thats why I have the house rules I do. Thats why I am writing up a &quot;Alchemist&quot; as a class based on 1e/2E, and early Bard Games material.That why, even if I don't fall in love with 4E, I will be stealing the ideas I like for my C&amp;C game.So for me its a win/win situation. If 4E blows me away I get a new awesome system as my &quot;go to&quot; game. If I don't fall in love with it I get a bunch of cool new ideas to steal for my house rules.Which is one of the strongest reasons I like C&amp;C. Its such a strong core mechanic I can integrate rules from any edition I like a rule from. Or from Talislanta, Paladium Fantasy, GURPS, and so on.So no edition wars. I will either love 4E, or I won't. Its that simple, so lets keep it that way in this thread.I think 4E classes are homogenous, the only thing different is the names used for doing the same thing/getting the same results. If thats good enough of a disguise to convince you there is a difference, great. I tear down mechanics to mechanics, The names are just window dressing. They all roll a d20 and do certain ranges of damage that are within 2 points of each other. They are homogenous. Only the name flavor makes a difference. Only imagining its fire versus cold versus a divine attack versus Viper Strike makes a difference, not in what is achieved.So that is why I call it homogenous. By evening the playing field, and making everyones damage field effectiveness essentially equal, its &quot;homogenous&quot;. So IMO its all true. I am glad others can see it as &quot;varied&quot;. I guess I am too jaded or just pay too much attention to the raw numbers by removing the window dressing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Treebore, post: 4390725, member: 10177"] I would like to avoid another edition war thread. Besides, I am not comparing 4E to 3E. My system of choice is C&C. So 4E is going to have to beat my love for C&C to become my new "go to" game. There are lots of things I love from other editions of D&D. Thats why I have the house rules I do. Thats why I am writing up a "Alchemist" as a class based on 1e/2E, and early Bard Games material. That why, even if I don't fall in love with 4E, I will be stealing the ideas I like for my C&C game. So for me its a win/win situation. If 4E blows me away I get a new awesome system as my "go to" game. If I don't fall in love with it I get a bunch of cool new ideas to steal for my house rules. Which is one of the strongest reasons I like C&C. Its such a strong core mechanic I can integrate rules from any edition I like a rule from. Or from Talislanta, Paladium Fantasy, GURPS, and so on. So no edition wars. I will either love 4E, or I won't. Its that simple, so lets keep it that way in this thread. I think 4E classes are homogenous, the only thing different is the names used for doing the same thing/getting the same results. If thats good enough of a disguise to convince you there is a difference, great. I tear down mechanics to mechanics, The names are just window dressing. They all roll a d20 and do certain ranges of damage that are within 2 points of each other. They are homogenous. Only the name flavor makes a difference. Only imagining its fire versus cold versus a divine attack versus Viper Strike makes a difference, not in what is achieved. So that is why I call it homogenous. By evening the playing field, and making everyones damage field effectiveness essentially equal, its "homogenous". So IMO its all true. I am glad others can see it as "varied". I guess I am too jaded or just pay too much attention to the raw numbers by removing the window dressing. [/QUOTE]

Verification