Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7039732" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Two things:1)&nbsp; This is doubly so when you consider the evocative nature of Worlds and Monsters, Neverwinter, Dark Sun, Heroes of the Feywild, the Primal Powers books (so underrated - the Primal Power Source and the Feywild are probably my favorite backstory components), DMG2, and several components of the Monster Manuals (I actually liked them and found them extremely useful in provoking me to use them thematically as well as tactically).2)&nbsp; More effort also should have made to clarify GMing principles in DMG1.&nbsp; They did a fantastic job with DMG2, online articles, Dungeon Mag, and RC.&nbsp; However, the thing the got the most (negative) press from DMG1 was &quot;skip the gate guards and get to the fun!&quot;&nbsp; How hard would it have been (and they did in other ways in that book and made it much more explicit later) to just say &quot;always go to the action&quot; or &quot;at every moment, drive play toward conflict.&quot;3.x had four &quot;cadences&quot; to combat (if you want to call them that).&nbsp; Front-loaded PCs and NPCs, encounter ending/deciding spells, ubiquitous buff stacking, summons/companions that had their own action economy.1)&nbsp; Ambush Gank and/or Rocket Tag Nova.2)&nbsp; Mop-up post encounter-devastating SoS spell.3)&nbsp; OMG Dispel Magic (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!) warfare on several combatants that spent 1/2 an hour adjusting stats for buffs (and now will spend considerable time adjusting back).4)&nbsp; The Summons/Companion &quot;hey everyone else, take 5 (errr 10)&quot;.Obviously 4e really had a singular cadence with subtle accents that gave each combat a unique flavor; the Rally narrative (front-loaded monsters + deep-resourced PCs) married to Swashbuckling/X-Men/Wire-Fu tropes.&nbsp; But consider how much of 4e's outcome based design for its basic combat engine was dedicated to addressing the above 1-4.&nbsp; And they did.&nbsp; If you liked any/all of 1-4 you probably didn't like 4e combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7039732, member: 6696971"] Two things: 1) This is doubly so when you consider the evocative nature of Worlds and Monsters, Neverwinter, Dark Sun, Heroes of the Feywild, the Primal Powers books (so underrated - the Primal Power Source and the Feywild are probably my favorite backstory components), DMG2, and several components of the Monster Manuals (I actually liked them and found them extremely useful in provoking me to use them thematically as well as tactically). 2) More effort also should have made to clarify GMing principles in DMG1. They did a fantastic job with DMG2, online articles, Dungeon Mag, and RC. However, the thing the got the most (negative) press from DMG1 was "skip the gate guards and get to the fun!" How hard would it have been (and they did in other ways in that book and made it much more explicit later) to just say "always go to the action" or "at every moment, drive play toward conflict." 3.x had four "cadences" to combat (if you want to call them that). Front-loaded PCs and NPCs, encounter ending/deciding spells, ubiquitous buff stacking, summons/companions that had their own action economy. 1) Ambush Gank and/or Rocket Tag Nova. 2) Mop-up post encounter-devastating SoS spell. 3) OMG Dispel Magic (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!) warfare on several combatants that spent 1/2 an hour adjusting stats for buffs (and now will spend considerable time adjusting back). 4) The Summons/Companion "hey everyone else, take 5 (errr 10)". Obviously 4e really had a singular cadence with subtle accents that gave each combat a unique flavor; the Rally narrative (front-loaded monsters + deep-resourced PCs) married to Swashbuckling/X-Men/Wire-Fu tropes. But consider how much of 4e's outcome based design for its basic combat engine was dedicated to addressing the above 1-4. And they did. If you liked any/all of 1-4 you probably didn't like 4e combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification