Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 5488318" data-attributes="member: 60075">The article felt a bit hollow, to be honest.Generating a fighter in 4E is a lot quicker than in 3E, and Mearls' list of respectively 18 vs. 16 steps feels bogus. The real difference is writing down skill bonuses in 3E and 4E. In 3E that's a lot of work, especially at first level - lots of points to allocate, then go down a list of, what, 25-30 entries?, and calculate all your attribute + rank bonus, + feats (if you invested in these), +racial bonuses (if you had any). It took ages the first couple of times. Contrast 4E. The skill list basically re-lists your ability bonuses, except for ticking 3-5 skills where you get a +5. And that's it. The end of Mearls' 18 point list for 4E? "Calculate healing surge total  Calculate surge value  Calculate bloodied value  Calculate passive Perception  Calculate passive Insight"These things a) are not actually distinct things (the first three are one-step modifications on your hp value) and b) consume a total of, what, 30 seconds? No comparison to the skill allocation in 3E. (I say that as a person whose favourite edition is 3E.)What purposes do these Mearls articles serve? I honestly, seriously, do not get it. 'We think 4E fighters are too complex.' 'I am not sure that the rules for cover need the complexity they receive in 4E.' And so on. I mean, it's bad enough that they pulled back so many 4E products, but the added self-deprecation certainly doesn't help. Edit.: Why do I get the feeling I'm back to reading one of <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20080314" target="_blank">these</a> or <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drdd/20080930" target="_blank">these</a>?</blockquote>

Verification