Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5781271" data-attributes="member: 48518">In 1E, we had mages and clerics with Dispel Magic and Remove Paralysis spells, and other such contingency protections. So we could defend against those dangerous attacks.I'm don't think 1E was the best design you could have. But I think in 4E they went overboard with having nothing to fear - at least nohting more than the rest. Everything is equally damageable or dangerous, except the very rare stunned (or helpless) effects. But even from those you're likely to phase out of in a round or 2, especially if you have a warlord or cleric handy.I remember how in 1E we feared medusae or, worse, beholders with their disintegrate ray. When I say we feared, I'm saying we, the players, feared. We felt the emotion of fear. Now in 4E? There is pretty much no single battle that I can say that the players fear more than others. We've had one player death against a bunch of ghouls not so long ago, then another against orcs. Those are our two player deaths in 5 levels of play. We beat the BBEG without loss, though it was a close call. In 4E, everything is brought to a same level of dangerousness. I do not feat the spellcaster or the beholder more than I fear the orcs or the ghouls.What's the point in gaining skill level modifiers if the easy/normal/difficult table (or whatever the name is) also scales? Why bother levelling up if what you gain doesn't give an advantage against anything the PC is going to interact with, since everything scales with the PC? I say: stick with gaining only what gives the PC an advantage over the PC's environment. Then perhaps some things in that environment can also develop interesting defenses, such as a fighter buying good armor.I prefer an absolute environment where the PCs will evolve. For example, I remember the AC 9 Flesh Golem in AD&D. It was nice that he would be easy to hit (with a magic weapon IIRC) at any level. I liked in all editions except 4E that creatures with plate mail armor were harder to hit with a weapon, than other creatures. In 4E: you need 8 or more on your d20 to hit any opponent (except Brutes, that require 7 or more; and soldiers, that require 10 or more).I've played 4E a lot - and still do with two games presently running. It has some fantastic design, but some of it took the breath out of the game IMO. The magic is not magic anymore, levelling up includes a lot of useless number crunching that's powder to the player's eyes, almost everything is so balanced and all based on a relative system that doesn't increase the PC's power in reality, it only keeps it abreast with the opponent's he going to face.There are some elements that are not relative in 4E, such as the increase in number of encounter/utility/daily powers that provide added flexibility to your arsenal, especially as it relates to the effects you can dish out. But all the level up number crunching: that's nothing except complications. Likewise for magic item bonuses: useless. (Which relates to the appearance of the inherent bonus system in DMG2.)One problem with 4E, IMHO, is that so much emphasis was put on game design balance that the game "spirit" suffered. So it makes a very nice system in theory (the nicest I've seen), but in practice it lacks a soul.I think that 4E is a stepping stone towards something else. It's appearance showed us something great. It brought a system that did not have its equivalent anywhere - at least not in a system that I know. It is a milestone in itself. I am grateful for it's development and for having been able to play and DM it enough to have become somewhat familiar with its mechanics. But I welcome the introduction of a new edition and hope that the game's soul now returns.</blockquote>

Verification