Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6574766" data-attributes="member: 82106">They never looked very hard, did they? I always found the WoW comparisons to be ridiculous, like comparing cruise ships to freight trains. Yeah, they're both entertainment, they both deal with fantasy, beyond that there's just nothing much in common between them. Even if some element is present in both the context is so hugely different its irrelevant. MMOs aren't even really role-playing games except in the most superficial sense. There's no plot or narrative, nothing even faintly like it. Its like saying Cruise Ships are just trains because they both have diesel engines. Besides WoW got pretty much all its ideas from D&D to start with. 4e didn't need to 'amalgamate' anything. I guess you forgot what thread you're posting in? Scroll to the top of the page dude and refresh your memory!In the long run? Everything either changes or dies. Its just that simple.Fractured once more? Who exactly fractured it the first time, WotC or all the people who couldn't bare to see anything change? Sticking with 4e or releasing some sort of updated version of 4e wouldn't have 'fractured' anything AGAIN. If half the community decided to stay behind they did the fracturing, and creating a 5e that pretty much dumped on 4e player's desires was of course not fracturing anything, or was it? So your argument here can be summarized as "you're just bitching, man up and rewrite 5e to work how you want it to, if you can homebrew it then there's no issue. And that wasn't an answer for people who didn't like some things in 4e why? lol, again, "oh, you don't like it, so jut rewrite the monsters!" I had no major issues with MM1 4e monsters for the most part I hate to tell you. I think the monsters got better with time, undoubtedly, but MM1 was not 'terribly unbalanced' or 'untested'. I do think that WotC had a poor understanding of the strong points of 4e and their monster design was in service of an agenda that wasn't quite in sync with that. As for Orcus, 5e doesn't even attempt to have a real epic tier in the same way that 4e did, nor am I particularly convinced that its 'name' monsters are yet tested. I certainly haven't hear anyone talking about fighting Orcus in 5e and what happened. Ironically, to the extent that 5e monster design exceeds 2e monster design which it seems to be based on, it is only when it DOES incorporate some scrap of 4e design.Pinch me! lol. Honestly I'm not convinced this was even one of the good points of 4e myself...Hmmmmm, last night my group of level 4 characters 'slew' a dragon (the Green  Dragon from Phandelver, though we finished that module quite a while ago). The entire scheme was cooked up by and depended ENTIRELY on the use of the Alarm spell. The rest of the characters played their parts, but at no time did any of them even exercise a class ability. Now, this is a BIT of an extreme case, but the wizard is definitely boss-man in our party, and the other characters aren't poorly set up. He just has a MUCH greater flexibility of options for all situations. I'd say its less balanced than 4e, though even there wizards played cleverly were pretty good.But all of these things are quite different and serve quite a different agenda. 5e rituals make spell casters better, 4e rituals did various things, but they certainly weren't restricted to any particular class. 5e supports 'grid play' the same way older editions did, you can just kinda do it but its not actually leveraged in any effective way. Etc. The benefit, IMHO, of the combat roles BEING EXPLICIT, was that it greatly improved class design.Its a tombstone because it represents the retreat from any notion of innovation. 4e innovated on 3.5, 5e retrenched, adding very little and regressing in most respects. It is a signpost that says "this is as far as we're willing to go with this, no further."</blockquote>

Verification