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="Baen" data-source="post: 4217354" data-attributes="member: 61662">I can actually agree with you on quite a few points, but there are a few I just don't seeYes, 4th has moved things more towards a cinematic design, although I wouldn't say quite final fantasy esque. The truth is though that it allows for a lot more built in improvisation then any edition before it. Skill challenges for example, are one of the most amazing things I have seen for out of combat scenarios. I can also see to an extent the move from simulation(although the monsters in 4th seem a lot more real to me then in 3rd.) to playability, but not in any way to predictability. The players will have a lot more options at hand then in 3rd, and with the increased importance of terrain I imagine encounters will be a lot more interesting and less mundane then they were in 3rd (not that they were boring, just that every fight with one monster was pretty much the same as the previous time. Terrain didn't do much to effect anyone but dragons or the occasional tactically placed funnel.) I can't speak for the others, but regardless of the steady move away from a Tolkien theme it seems we will finally be able to truly model the grandeur and majesty of LOTR from the books. On coherent game design, 3rd was far more rushed then 4th, and they have spent a far longer time going over and checking things then they did for it as well. I really can't see 3.x as a coherent system by any definition.All the other points I quoted are completely separate from an edition. Regardless of the fluff in the books (dwarfs being the slaves of giants) their is NO reason to play them that way. 4th edition in no way is set campaign, or is limiting on the imagination. I actually see it as the exact opposite.Also from my understanding 4e supports on the spot ruling a lot more then 3rd did, but then that is from the designers mouth. On versatility, I will point once again to skill challenges. It is also a lot easier to make new encounters because of the way they constructed the monsters this time around. They are also SIGNIFICANTLY easier to modify and change. I can sort of understand your problem with minions, and with powers as well. I do not mean to project anything on you that is basely false, but this is the best inkling I can gather from your posts. Your problem with 4th edition seems to stem from a design viewpoint. 4th edition is not designed to just be a slash and go rpg. It's design seems to go back to the roots of heroic fantasy, and be based around storytelling and roleplaying. Once again the skill changes. Monsters that fight in ways that makes sense. However the key things are the powers, the minions, and the hp system. HP is now in very little way representative of how many hits a player can really take. They are a representation of an individuals importance to the plot, the story line. This is why solo monsters are so strong, and minions take one hit to kill. Solo monsters are culminations of adventures, minions are just fodder. This is not saying you can't have a fun encounter with minions, the DDXP stuff was almost entirely minions and no one noticed, and most people had a lot of fun. On how much they can take really, that is left entirely up to the dm now. Hitpoints, now connected with the plot, allows the controller of the plot even more freedom with them. On powers, as a person who has practiced combat you would know. Everyone has certain moves that they tend to fall on, since they work. Combat tends to turn into patters, fighters stick with what works. That is to large extent what these powers are about. Their are standard moves you can pull off easily (at wills) things that only come up with a good opportunity (encounter) and things that you rarely take advantage of (dailies.) Now I think of D&D as sort of an interactive story. When I think of a fourth edition encounter I see it less as a video game type brawl where everyone chooses their moves in a metagame fashion then an intense battle where the players get to dictate to a certain extent what happens in the story's cinematic fight scenes. Chop through some orc minions, land a huge blow on the boss. When you think of it as a story, it makes a lot of sense, at least to me. The rest of your points are stuff I honestly can't argue with, we have simple differences of opinion. The only reason I am arguing is I want to first make sure I am not missing something, and make neither of us have misconceptions about the limitations of the new system. This is not an insult or anything, both of us have our biases. I am what most would call a 4e fanboi, hardcorz. I have been blinded by quite a few things on 4th. You have a far more in-depth experience with D&D and other tabletop rpgs then I do, since this edition is taking an entirely new direction (it really is ) they have changed a lot of things you liked. I guess I just want to isolate what is really different, what doesn't make sense, and whether the game is good. Lots of it comes down to opinion, which is fine by me, but whatever truth whether good or bad we can garnish from it is good.</blockquote>

Verification