Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 4492448" data-attributes="member: 10913">My largest fear was, I suppose, that the game would be complex to run. So far (with 6 sessions under my belt), this seems so-so. On the one hand, a simple fight appears simpler. On the other, the fights are more complicated as the situations and monsters are. I think it's a win on the 4e side on this point - while complexity of running the encounter as a DM might not have changed much, it is used much more efficiently now to deliver interesting and varied abilties and scenarios rather than micromanage complex statblocks.Another fear I've mentioned is &quot;railroading&quot; the DM (or, rarely, players) with all the Aggro mechanics. I do find this irritating at times, especially on two fronts - (1) the fighter's marking is keeping my monsters from running around and making lots of havoc and fun across the battlefield, which I think would have been better; and (2) my warlock's Divine-Challenge/Eyebite combo is really annoying, making the opponent unable to both see the warlock/paladin and at the same time needing to attack him. On the other hand the party's defenders appear to be quite distinct from the strikers and artillery, so it's kinda a wash.The thing is, I'm not growing into liking 4e more the more I play it. The main problem is that it feels very much like a boardgame to me, with many rules I don't quite wrapped my mind around and with lots of limtations on precisely how can you be cool. Combat takes forever, and it's mostly spent on tactical calculations and rules minutea, not on fun hacking and slashing and kicking ass. I think I'm growing too old to learn a new rules-heavy game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yair, post: 4492448, member: 10913"] My largest fear was, I suppose, that the game would be complex to run. So far (with 6 sessions under my belt), this seems so-so. On the one hand, a simple fight appears simpler. On the other, the fights are more complicated as the situations and monsters are. I think it's a win on the 4e side on this point - while complexity of running the encounter as a DM might not have changed much, it is used much more efficiently now to deliver interesting and varied abilties and scenarios rather than micromanage complex statblocks. Another fear I've mentioned is "railroading" the DM (or, rarely, players) with all the Aggro mechanics. I do find this irritating at times, especially on two fronts - (1) the fighter's marking is keeping my monsters from running around and making lots of havoc and fun across the battlefield, which I think would have been better; and (2) my warlock's Divine-Challenge/Eyebite combo is really annoying, making the opponent unable to both see the warlock/paladin and at the same time needing to attack him. On the other hand the party's defenders appear to be quite distinct from the strikers and artillery, so it's kinda a wash. The thing is, I'm not growing into liking 4e more the more I play it. The main problem is that it feels very much like a boardgame to me, with many rules I don't quite wrapped my mind around and with lots of limtations on precisely how can you be cool. Combat takes forever, and it's mostly spent on tactical calculations and rules minutea, not on fun hacking and slashing and kicking ass. I think I'm growing too old to learn a new rules-heavy game. [/QUOTE]

Verification