Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6268318" data-attributes="member: 37579">Many of these issues started with 3e and were included in 4e as a result. So it's more a case of things some people hated 10 years ago and things people didn't mind or like 10 years ago. Such as fighters with powers, NPCs using PC rules, slow healing, lack of at-will spells, spell lists in monsters, the fragility of low level PCs, alignment (number, related spells, and restrictions), and QW vs LF. Some are new to 4e, like the warlord &amp; martial healing. Although, most of the ire seems aimed at martial healing. While the warlord gets many &quot;should it exist?&quot; threads, the objections raised there are similar to any hybrid class, such as assassin or thief-acrobat or duskblade or runepriest and are largely edition neutral.The arguments continue to run hot because, frankly, 4e played favourites. The designers of that game picked the options they liked and just assumed everyone else would just accept it because &quot;it was D&amp;D&quot;. If you have similar tastes as those designers then 4e is amaztastic. If you have taste contrary to the designers then 4e is balls.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6268318, member: 37579"] Many of these issues started with 3e and were included in 4e as a result. So it's more a case of things some people hated 10 years ago and things people didn't mind or like 10 years ago. Such as fighters with powers, NPCs using PC rules, slow healing, lack of at-will spells, spell lists in monsters, the fragility of low level PCs, alignment (number, related spells, and restrictions), and QW vs LF. Some are new to 4e, like the warlord & martial healing. Although, most of the ire seems aimed at martial healing. While the warlord gets many "should it exist?" threads, the objections raised there are similar to any hybrid class, such as assassin or thief-acrobat or duskblade or runepriest and are largely edition neutral. The arguments continue to run hot because, frankly, 4e played favourites. The designers of that game picked the options they liked and just assumed everyone else would just accept it because "it was D&D". If you have similar tastes as those designers then 4e is amaztastic. If you have taste contrary to the designers then 4e is balls. [/QUOTE]

Verification