Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6578824" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.  Encounter powers gave PCs something that was dramatic/limited (a little better than an at will, 1/encounter each), like daily spells had been in prior eds, but less extreme.  They could be used to paint the character's style or concept in combat, since they'd be available enough to for each to see use in most combats, while still standing out a little more than at-wills.  I'm not sure why some folks had a problem with casting a generally useful spell 1/encounter instead of memorizing it several times.  I mean, it represents an obvious pulling back from 3.x 'Tier 1' levels of flexibility/power, but aside from that (an objection to balance rather than a given mechanic).   I really can't relate, no, because the difference between getting to do something cool maybe 1/encounter (as you level up 2 or even 4 /different/ things) vs either never (pre-3e) or every round (most 3.x feats) seems like more variety, not less.   In a sense, sure.  Using 'perceived' the way you do wrongly implies that the problems were similar in nature and validity.  The class balance issues that 3e had were very real, mechanical problems, there was no pretending they didn't exist.  OTOH, the 'static combat' issue in 3e was something that might or might not happen at every table, and might or might not be seen as a problem even where it occurred.  4e, none the less, addressed both issues (among others) with vigor.  4e had very real issues with encounter (but not class) balance when you varied encounters/day.  It also had an issue with 'long' combats that, like the 3e static-combat issues, was neither consistent in happening nor from being seen as a problem from table to table.  In addition, the edition war spawned many 'perceived problems' with 4e that were absolutely, demonstrably false if taken at face value, but mostly boiled down to either to a desire for nostalgia, or a rejection of class balance. 5e did not address all the 'perceived problems' with 4e.  It couldn't, because many of them were outright edition-war lies, and also because certain of them required mutually-exclusive solutions.  It did, however, address the core issues behind the edition war, and rolled back class balance and feel to pre-3e benchmarks.  So, no, you can't say that 3e->4e and 4e->5e both represent 'evolution' of the game.  Evolution is slow, incremental change.  The 1e->2e->'Complete' books-> w/'____:Option' books was an evolutionary change, so was 3e->3.5->Pathfinder.  2e->3e and 3e->4e were revolutionary changes, they introduced completely new elements to the game each time.  4e->5e was atavistic, it re-introduced or rolled back aspects of older versions that had been abandoned or improved in the prior two editions.Of course, that's only on balance.  You can point to evolutionary changes, spells from 2e->3e, feats from 3e->4e, combat advantage -> advantage in 4e->5e, etc... The party line, as I recall it, was that KotSf was designed in parallel, and sent to the printers first, so it ended up using unfinished guidelines to create it's encounters.  It also reads a bit like a 3e module, and you can see bits here and there where it clearly harkens back to 3.5, even as the game tries to evolve.  Irontooth, for instance, has a power that re-introduces the dynamic (or 'static combat' lack there of) of the full attack.  That encounter, and the final one, both 'broke' the encounter guidelines from the DMG - that is, they were deadly and frustrating, just as the guidelines would have suggested they would be.We saw the exact same problem for the exact same reason in HotDQ.  Kobold Press didn't get the final encounter guidelines before it went to the printers, and many of the  semi-random combats, especially in the first 'Seek the Keep' challenge could end up deadly when they should have been moderate.3.0 might not have been perfect out the gate, but at least Sunless Citadel wasn't so messed up.</blockquote>

Verification