Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6243231" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is one of the things I like best about 4e. Worlds and Monsters promised it, and the rules delivered.I think MV and the Rules Compendium are great. But the player and GM books, with their ridiculous but partial repetition of RC content, are hopeless. The actual player-side content (powers and feats) I don't mind, but it is padded out with needless (and sometimes contradictory) flavour text that, for me at least, adds nothing to the game. If the feat or power is any good in its design then its flavour will emerge in play, much like the monsters!A bigger issue in my view extends beyond Essentials to the general editorial approach - a failure to be explicit about new feats or powers substituting for earlier versions that have been found to be underpowered. This is not just an Essentials issue (eg the new defence feats, or Resilience vs the human +1 feat bonus to saves in the PHB) but comes up in other areas as well (eg Divine Power has a feat for paladins - I think that enhances LoH - that makes a PHB feat completely redundant).This sort of editorial silence is fine in a game like Magic, where understanding all the nuances of different releases is part of player skill, but just undermines the clarity and usability of RPG PC-build rules.Maybe you linked to the wrong thread? Or were being ironic and I misunderstood? In any event, speaking non-ironically, I didn't notice any brutality on that thread - it doesn't hold a candle to the still-active Fighters vs Casters thread on this board, for instance. Or either of the &quot;why balance is bad&quot; threads. Which are themselves far tamer than similar threads I've seen over the past 6 or so years.This one of the top contributions I've seen to the various IP debates that have gone on on these boards over the years!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6243231, member: 42582"] This is one of the things I like best about 4e. Worlds and Monsters promised it, and the rules delivered. I think MV and the Rules Compendium are great. But the player and GM books, with their ridiculous but partial repetition of RC content, are hopeless. The actual player-side content (powers and feats) I don't mind, but it is padded out with needless (and sometimes contradictory) flavour text that, for me at least, adds nothing to the game. If the feat or power is any good in its design then its flavour will emerge in play, much like the monsters! A bigger issue in my view extends beyond Essentials to the general editorial approach - a failure to be explicit about new feats or powers substituting for earlier versions that have been found to be underpowered. This is not just an Essentials issue (eg the new defence feats, or Resilience vs the human +1 feat bonus to saves in the PHB) but comes up in other areas as well (eg Divine Power has a feat for paladins - I think that enhances LoH - that makes a PHB feat completely redundant). This sort of editorial silence is fine in a game like Magic, where understanding all the nuances of different releases is part of player skill, but just undermines the clarity and usability of RPG PC-build rules. Maybe you linked to the wrong thread? Or were being ironic and I misunderstood? In any event, speaking non-ironically, I didn't notice any brutality on that thread - it doesn't hold a candle to the still-active Fighters vs Casters thread on this board, for instance. Or either of the "why balance is bad" threads. Which are themselves far tamer than similar threads I've seen over the past 6 or so years. This one of the top contributions I've seen to the various IP debates that have gone on on these boards over the years! [/QUOTE]

Verification