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="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4916102" data-attributes="member: 11300">Hi Merric,I think part of this is not just what they could do, but what they had to deal with and how they could react to it. Monsters could pull out some really nice surprises on a group. Some were just a bag of hit points, but others were just damn dangerous to deal with, and everything in between. You knew that if they grabbed you, you were gone (to the point of relying on other PCs to save your bacon). There was more variety and more danger that a basic martial character had to react to. I'm not talking save or dies (which as a DM, I always tried to control anyway), but stuff that felt nasty and could be. And so even though you only had a handful of different attacks, it is the myriad of circumstances in which they could be deployed and would need to react to that would keep the sense of tactical variety vibrant.4E on the other hand puts a lot of variety (or perceived variety) in the hands of the PCs and less (or a more manageable amount) in the hands of the DM. The lethality of the game was toned down to be less swingy, but I'm not to sure that this is as greater feature as some make it out to be. For 3.x, rather than damage and a possibly ongoing condition, there just seemed to be more variety. This is not to say that 4E is completely lacking in this area (funnily enough, I found the goblins shift on a miss to be fantastic flavour-wise and variety-wise). I'd just like to see a marriage of the two, take some of the fantastic ideas from 4E and blend them in with 3E's scope to let them breathe rather than be constrained by the almighty balance deity.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification