Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dkyle" data-source="post: 5849195" data-attributes="member: 70707">Saves (pre-4E) are really only superficially active, and fundamentally very different immediate reactions/interrupts.&nbsp; I would be disappointed to see immediate actions go away, and saves be treated like they're some kind of replacement.A Save is mechanically equivalent to the spell attack rolls in 4E.&nbsp; I suppose some might feel more &quot;involved&quot; if they're rolling the die, but it takes only a minimal understanding of the game to understand how illusory that involvement really is.&nbsp; You're rolling the die instead of the DM.&nbsp; That's all.&nbsp; A shame that they're abandoning a completely sensible simplification (spells are attacks, just like everything else) that does nothing but make the game easier to learn, but without removing any actual depth, for the sake of such a superficial &quot;involvement&quot;.&nbsp; And why should spells be the only things opposed by &quot;active&quot; defenses, anyway?Overall, I've not seen much problem with immediates in 4E.&nbsp; The one-per-round limit keeps them in check, and their presence adds a lot to the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dkyle, post: 5849195, member: 70707"] Saves (pre-4E) are really only superficially active, and fundamentally very different immediate reactions/interrupts. I would be disappointed to see immediate actions go away, and saves be treated like they're some kind of replacement. A Save is mechanically equivalent to the spell attack rolls in 4E. I suppose some might feel more "involved" if they're rolling the die, but it takes only a minimal understanding of the game to understand how illusory that involvement really is. You're rolling the die instead of the DM. That's all. A shame that they're abandoning a completely sensible simplification (spells are attacks, just like everything else) that does nothing but make the game easier to learn, but without removing any actual depth, for the sake of such a superficial "involvement". And why should spells be the only things opposed by "active" defenses, anyway? Overall, I've not seen much problem with immediates in 4E. The one-per-round limit keeps them in check, and their presence adds a lot to the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification