Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 4110535" data-attributes="member: 336">Like I said, you can still use elite and solo monsters so that you can keep a more comfortable ratio of opponents.If you did this with 3.5 nothing prevents you from doing the same with 4E.The only difference is in effect.&nbsp; If the 6th level spell affected several creatures and you successfully adjudicated it without a grid, using 3.5 rules.&nbsp; I don't see what difference a 2nd level power that affects a single target would pose that would prevent you from adjudicating it.&nbsp; That is a matter of opinion and not really supported by what has happened with the game in all editions.&nbsp; I remember vividly the cries of miniatures game that thundered across the interwebs when 3.0 and mostly 3.5 came out.&nbsp; Obviously that was just another case of overreacting, since quite a few people still play without minis and are able to cope rather handily with the gridless environment.So what you are saying is that you currently can adjudicate spells without a grid but powers are too gamist and don't &quot;simulate&quot; what you want in a game.&nbsp; Do you have trouble simulating spells in combat without a board?&nbsp; Because if you don't your argument does not have much validity.&nbsp; What do spells &quot;simulate?&quot;That is fine, but that does not remove the possibility that 4e is just as easy to play without a grid as previous versions.&nbsp; If you had problems doing gridless combat with the other versions those problems probably still remain in this version.&nbsp; If you didn't, then nothing changes.Sorry, I don't see the disconnect.&nbsp; For those that had no problems before, the new game does not change anything in a way that all of a sudden your imagination can not cope with.D&amp;D had its roots in wargames and miniatures battles.&nbsp; Most of the effects that a &quot;magic-user&quot; could do where in direct relation to how &quot;Artillery&quot; worked in those games.&nbsp; If you were able to handle the complexities of combat in 3e, the edition that most closely went back to the D&amp;D wargaming roots, then I can't see what the fuzz is about.And the cries of &quot;it's too gamist&quot; or &quot;simulationist&quot; or &quot;narrativist usually don't ring true.&nbsp; The three labels are mostly used to infer that whatever style of gaming the &quot;labeller&quot; is not; is somehow&nbsp; inferior.&nbsp; I don't buy it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 4110535, member: 336"] Like I said, you can still use elite and solo monsters so that you can keep a more comfortable ratio of opponents. If you did this with 3.5 nothing prevents you from doing the same with 4E. The only difference is in effect. If the 6th level spell affected several creatures and you successfully adjudicated it without a grid, using 3.5 rules. I don't see what difference a 2nd level power that affects a single target would pose that would prevent you from adjudicating it. That is a matter of opinion and not really supported by what has happened with the game in all editions. I remember vividly the cries of miniatures game that thundered across the interwebs when 3.0 and mostly 3.5 came out. Obviously that was just another case of overreacting, since quite a few people still play without minis and are able to cope rather handily with the gridless environment. So what you are saying is that you currently can adjudicate spells without a grid but powers are too gamist and don't "simulate" what you want in a game. Do you have trouble simulating spells in combat without a board? Because if you don't your argument does not have much validity. What do spells "simulate?" That is fine, but that does not remove the possibility that 4e is just as easy to play without a grid as previous versions. If you had problems doing gridless combat with the other versions those problems probably still remain in this version. If you didn't, then nothing changes. Sorry, I don't see the disconnect. For those that had no problems before, the new game does not change anything in a way that all of a sudden your imagination can not cope with. D&D had its roots in wargames and miniatures battles. Most of the effects that a "magic-user" could do where in direct relation to how "Artillery" worked in those games. If you were able to handle the complexities of combat in 3e, the edition that most closely went back to the D&D wargaming roots, then I can't see what the fuzz is about. And the cries of "it's too gamist" or "simulationist" or "narrativist usually don't ring true. The three labels are mostly used to infer that whatever style of gaming the "labeller" is not; is somehow inferior. I don't buy it. [/QUOTE]

Verification