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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6057002" data-attributes="member: 87792">And you seem to be trying to discuss "the Game" by assuming that 3.X and 4e are the same.  They aren't and any discussion that assumes they are will fail to get out of the starting blocks.  Really?  "There have always been rule loopholes"?  Name three of them in 4e.  I'll wait (or at least find something else to do). The 4e design team has been superb at putting out errata so that whenever some bright spark finds a rules loophole it gets closed.  Also the core rules for 4e are clear, consistent, simpler than anything since the White Box, and after a round of errata (4e on release wasn't properly playtested) work well.  Rules lawyers in 4e find it a pretty barren wasteland when looking for loopholes - and this bears out in play to the point that across multiple groups and playing weekly for three years I've seen half a dozen attempts to rules lawyer, none of which lasted longer than the time it took the DM to decide - and I literally can not remember looking a rule up in a book in the last year.  You don't even need to look up spells to play a mage or cleric as they are printed right there on the character sheet for you - this is a sea change from the days of 2e and 3e and "character sheets" that required you have several rulebooks to hand to play a wizard. I speak as someone with the temprament and ability of a rules lawyer - and one of the reasons 4e is far and away my favourite version of D&D is that it doesn't encourage me to rules lawyer by including huge power differentials, unclear rules, and multiple levels of contradictory rules.  This matches my experience - but what this means differs a lot.  A lot of the rules, monsters, and just about everything else in 3e were half-baked.  Shivering touch, anyone?  Venomfire?  The Sarrukh?  The diplomacy rules?  Sculpt Spell + Antimagic Field?  4e source books (other than the Dungeon Explorer's Handbook) were almost all brought out with the idea that all the books should be as high design quality as the PHB (higher in almost all cases), that simply adding options shouldn't add power creep, and if they get something wrong they fix it with errata.  Adding e.g. the Spell Compendium to 3e makes all prepared casters more powerful by its very existence - more spells means more versatility and more power.  Adding e.g. Martial Power 2 adds such things as the Brawler Fighter who uses sword and fist almost as effectively as most fighters use sword and shield, and makes a whole range of other archetypes viable and effective but doesn't actually contain any top flight builds I can think of other than arguably the final pieces of the Lazy Warlord.So the approach may be simmilar in certain ways - but the consequences are very, very different and because as far as I can tell you only know 3.X you are trying to treat them as if they were the same.</blockquote>

Verification