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: 9425219" data-attributes="member: 58416">I'm don't think it's necessarily a bad thing either. Honestly, there was a time when I had a love/hate relationship with 4E, and certain things about it bugged me. There still are some aspects of it that bother me, but I learned that a lot of that was (imo) because the "official" advice for how to run the system was often not very good (and sometimes actively bad) advice. Also, the PR campaign of "ze game will remain ze same" did the edition a disservice because the game didn't remain the same. So trying to approach DMing or playing 4E as though it was the same as 3E lead to a poor experience.The good things from 4E were encounter design, terrain effects, and a much better way -than 5e- of handling feats and ability score increases.The good-and-bad thing about 4E was highlighting keywords and specifically-defined conditions. They were good because the rules were written in a way that were easy to understand. (It's alien to me when I see people say 4E was "complicated.") However, they were also bad because the rigid definitions were, much like the current discussion about Invisible, not always very well thought out in terms of how different parts of the game interacted with each other. Often, what "made sense" was trumped by how the game specifically said that something worked. Were there houserules? Obviously, yes. (At one point, I had an entire notebook covering that I designed monsters differently and used my own XP Budget tables.) In any home game, you can run things differently.At the same time (and as I've already said in this thread,) RAI is not as obvious as you might think given that the 5e24 rules appear to be taking influence from an edition that was written around very specific terms and (for a lack of better words) "coding language."</blockquote>

Verification